Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My response was to your inability to understand that wine might contain trace toxins (in addition to ethyl alcohol, which is a known fetal toxin) which you apparently do not see as a problem.
Quote:
Yet vaccines used in pregnancy are not tested for safety or efficacy so you should really abstain.
This is untrue. Manufacturers may not do pregnancy studies. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. That does not mean there is no research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy.
Quote:
It's interesting that each of you religious vaccination supporters selectively read posts. I actually DIDN'T drink any wine even though my midwife suggested it. I actually think it's wrong to even take an aspirin during pregnancy.
It is my understanding that you did not drink the wine because you did not have any. You have repeatedly insisted that it would be safe to do so, though.
Quote:
I have had 4 children naturally. The only difference in her case was the vaccine. It's a small sample but with all the genes and environment the same it actually makes for a great case. The ONLY difference was the flu shot. That has scientific significance.
You said it was a long labor. That alone could account for your daughter's fever. How long was it between when your membranes ruptured and when she was delivered? How long did you have to push? Did you have a fever yourself? How many weeks pregnant were you when you took the vaccine?
Quote:
Never had the flu. EVER. Not before or after that. So I had the start of the flu (with no symptoms) before I had the shot? Are you serious?
If what you had after the vaccine was flu, you did not get it from the vaccine. The virus in the vaccine, presuming you had the shot, is inactivated. It cannot reproduce and cause flu symptoms.
Quote:
Who cares what country we are talking about. You routinely state figures of disease death from other countries when saying childhood diseases are "deadly" so the FACT is that this drug caused babies to be born without limbs and other things. ANY toxin ingested, injected, or encountered during pregnancy has the potential to harm the fetus. That is a FACT and includes VACCINES. Maybe you should show why vaccines should be exempt from toxin status when they are clearly toxic.
You brought up thalidomide. I just pointed out that birth defects due to it were avoided in this country because the FDA did not approve it.
Any toxin - but not ethyl alcohol in your opinion apparently - has the potential to cause harm. Do you not have even the faintest glimmering of cognitive dissonance associated with trying to hold both of those ideas in your brain at the same time?
Quote:
No one has done the studies. Show me a study of vaccinated pregnancy outcomes versus non-vaccinated pregnancy outcomes. Show them.
Okay I'm just going to take a religious vaccination stance on this. Skeptical Raptor's Blog? Really? A unanimous person claiming to be educated? Yet we should believe what he/she says? You discredit a great scientist know for their work but promote this nameless dork? I am really shocked at how far you are willing to reach for info.
The Skeptical Raptor is Michael Simpson. He has an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university, and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university.
Quote:
"outweigh any unproven potential concerns"... um if they are unproven then...
Guess what is unproven.... The safety of vaccines during pregnancy. As I stated before, there has been no study as to the efficacy and safety of vaccines during pregnancy. The FDA lists vaccines as a potentially harmful agent.
Yet it safe right?
I'll just say it again. The people who make the vaccines did not do pregnancy studies. Have you possibly thought of a reason? Here's your chance to score big on Jeopardy some day.
The studies have been done, however, showing that flu vaccine and the Tdap are safe in pregnancy.
Time's up. Why is there no pregnancy info in the vaccine package insert?
Spoiler
Because pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to accept any liability for fetal harm during a study. There are very few drugs approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy.
"Yet only a dozen medications are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use during pregnancy. All of them are medications for gestation- or birth-related issues, such as regional anesthesia, nausea and vomiting, the prevention of congenital malformation, and the induction or delay of labor (Haire 2001). Any medication used to treat illness during pregnancy—be it hypertension, diabetes, depression, or cancer—is used without approval from the FDA, often leaving doctors and patients alike worried whenever they face decisions about using medication during pregnancy. Pregnancy, it turns out, is an 'off label' condition."
Thought you might be interested in this decision. Legislation from the Nanny Health Czar Mike Bloomberg, who pulled a fast one at the end of his administration. So the legislators in Albany would have to vote specifically on flu vaccination mandates? It would interesting to know how many of the adult legislators themselves have gotten their flu shots every year?
Do a Google search on this and you get pages of listings from media across the country on this ruling. I cannot imagine why. lol
My response was to your inability to understand that wine might contain trace toxins (in addition to ethyl alcohol, which is a known fetal toxin) which you apparently do not see as a problem.
My response is that you apparently see a huge problem with the "trace toxins" in wine but not the "trace toxins" in vaccines. My stance on it is very consistent. NO toxins of any kind during pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
This is untrue. Manufacturers may not do pregnancy studies. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. That does not mean there is no research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy.
There is no research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy. That is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
It is my understanding that you did not drink the wine because you did not have any. You have repeatedly insisted that it would be safe to do so, though.
I think you should abstain from all known toxins including wine but you are correct I didn't have any in the home at the time. Guess why? I didn't drink wine during my pregnancy. I also didn't have any drugs or guns in the home... but you are right, if I did then I would have shot someone or taken drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Any toxin - but not ethyl alcohol in your opinion apparently - has the potential to cause harm. Do you not have even the faintest glimmering of cognitive dissonance associated with trying to hold both of those ideas in your brain at the same time?
Right back at you... your cognitive dissonance is a big problem. You think wine is going to harm a fetus with it's trace amount of toxins but the trace amount of toxins in vaccines is just fine.
Those studies the CDC claims they used are laughable. What is even funnier is that you keep saying prove they are harmful without using VAERS or personal stories. Guess what? The studies used on the CDC website uses VAERS and VSD (which also uses VAERS). Also, those studies are crap because of the exclusions, cohort sizes, and reporting error. Imagine a woman going to GHC (who reports to VSD) gets the shot then goes to the emergency room (who does not report to VSD) because of an adverse reaction. What do you get? Skewed results. But luckily the studies were designed perfectly to show how "safe and effective" the vaccines are during pregnancy.
Show me a Scientific study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The Skeptical Raptor is Michael Simpson. He has an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university, and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university.
LOL if I used someone like that you would say he isn't qualified to discuss immunology. Again your cognitive dissonance is a big problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I'll just say it again. The people who make the vaccines did not do pregnancy studies. Have you possibly thought of a reason? Here's your chance to score big on Jeopardy some day.
The studies have been done, however, showing that flu vaccine and the Tdap are safe in pregnancy.
Time's up. Why is there no pregnancy info in the vaccine package insert?
Because pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to accept any liability for fetal harm during a study. There are very few drugs approved by the FDA for use in pregnancy.
"Yet only a dozen medications are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use during pregnancy. All of them are medications for gestation- or birth-related issues, such as regional anesthesia, nausea and vomiting, the prevention of congenital malformation, and the induction or delay of labor (Haire 2001). Any medication used to treat illness during pregnancy—be it hypertension, diabetes, depression, or cancer—is used without approval from the FDA, often leaving doctors and patients alike worried whenever they face decisions about using medication during pregnancy. Pregnancy, it turns out, is an 'off label' condition."
This proves my point. The manufacturer doesn't want to be liable for fetal harm. Here's a fun fact... it's because the vaccines are dangerous and they know it. The immune system is suppressed for good reason in a pregnancy (so you don't abort the fetus) and the last thing you should do is stir it up with a vaccine (which is what it is designed to do). Even the manufacturer's scientists aren't that dumb.
Ask yourself why there are very few drugs approved for use in pregnancy but vaccines (a drug and biological product) are perfectly "safe and effective."
The CDC holds the patent to many of these vaccines so it isn't surprising that they want them to be LABELED as "safe and effective" regardless of whether they really are.
The solution to the vaccine controversy is to
My response is that you apparently see a huge problem with the "trace toxins" in wine but not the "trace toxins" in vaccines. My stance on it is very consistent. NO toxins of any kind during pregnancy.
The ingredients in vaccines have been studied and are not toxic in the doses used. Ethyl alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome.
Do I now understand that you are retracting your opinion that wine (which also contains other trace elements that could be toxic to the fetus) during pregnancy is safe to use to "relax" someone having contractions?
Quote:
There is no research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy. That is a fact.
The people who make the vaccines do not do those studies. Women, especially pregnant women, have historically pretty well been excluded from such studies, out of concern for the fetus. That means that penicillin is category B. antacids are category B. Colace is category C. Vaginal antifungals are category C.
There is a mountain of evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy that have been done by researchers other than the manufacturer. You cannot seem to grasp the concept that the package insert is a legal document and only includes information from trials done by the drug company. It should not be that hard to understand.
"One study of approximately 2,000 pregnant women who received IIV3 during pregnancy demonstrated no increase in malignancies during infancy or early childhood (243). A matched case-control study of 252 pregnant women who received IIV3 within the 6 months before delivery determined no adverse events after vaccination among pregnant women and no difference in pregnancy outcomes compared with 826 pregnant women who were not vaccinated (244). A case-control analysis of data from six health-care organizations participating in the VSD found no significant increase in the risk for pregnancy loss in the 4 weeks following seasonal influenza vaccination (245). A review of health registry data in Norway noted an increased risk for fetal death associated with pandemic 2009(H1N1) infection, but no increased risk of fetal mortality associated with vaccination (246). During 2000–2003, when an estimated 2 million pregnant women were vaccinated, only 20 adverse events among women who received IIV3 were reported to VAERS, including nine injection site reactions, eight systemic reactions (e.g., fever, headache, and myalgia), and three miscarriages (247). Background rates of miscarriage vary from 10.4% in women aged <25 years to 22.4% in women aged >34 years (248); considering the number of pregnant women vaccinated, miscarriage following (but not attributable to) influenza vaccination would not be an unexpected event. Recent reviews of studies pertaining to seasonal (249–251) and monovalent 2009(H1N1) (250,251) inactivated influenza vaccines in pregnancy concluded that no evidence exists to suggest harm to the fetus from maternal vaccination."
Doctors avoid vaccinating during the first trimester specifically because miscarriage is common and it would be easy for the patient to blame the miscarriage on the vaccine.
Quote:
Right back at you... your cognitive dissonance is a big problem. You think wine is going to harm a fetus with it's trace amount of toxins but the trace amount of toxins in vaccines is just fine.
The fallacy here is that the substances in vaccines have been shown not to be toxic in the amounts used.
Quote:
Those studies the CDC claims they used are laughable. What is even funnier is that you keep saying prove they are harmful without using VAERS or personal stories. Guess what? The studies used on the CDC website uses VAERS and VSD (which also uses VAERS). Also, those studies are crap because of the exclusions, cohort sizes, and reporting error. Imagine a woman going to GHC (who reports to VSD) gets the shot then goes to the emergency room (who does not report to VSD) because of an adverse reaction. What do you get? Skewed results. But luckily the studies were designed perfectly to show how "safe and effective" the vaccines are during pregnancy.
What exclusions?
Cohort size? This one on Tdap included 123,494 women.
"The VSD uses electronic health data from each participating site. This includes information on vaccines - the kind of vaccine that is given to each patient, date of vaccination, and other vaccinations given on the same day. The VSD also uses information on medical illnesses that have been diagnosed at doctors’ offices, urgent care visits, emergency department visits and hospital stays."
The difference is that VAERS is not the only source of data. The anti-vax folks like to use VAERS to claim every report is proof of an adverse effect, whereas the studies confirming the safety of vaccines actually investigate the reports and assign a probability of causality. The Vaccine Safety Datalink uses cases for which all the medical information is available.
Quote:
Show me a Scientific study.
I have. I can't help it if you are unable to understand them.
Quote:
LOL if I used someone like that you would say he isn't qualified to discuss immunology. Again your cognitive dissonance is a big problem.
I do not believe you have "used" anyone like that.
Quote:
This proves my point. The manufacturer doesn't want to be liable for fetal harm. Here's a fun fact... it's because the vaccines are dangerous and they know it. The immune system is suppressed for good reason in a pregnancy (so you don't abort the fetus) and the last thing you should do is stir it up with a vaccine (which is what it is designed to do). Even the manufacturer's scientists aren't that dumb.
Vaccines "stir up" the immune system the same way infections do. The difference is that the infections "stir up" a lot more. Being given a vaccine exposes the immune system to a tiny amount of inactivated bacteria or virus. Getting the disease exposes the immune system to vast amounts of reproducing bacteria and replicating virus.
The manufacturers do not do studies in pregnant women because of lawyers, not scientists.
Quote:
Ask yourself why there are very few drugs approved for use in pregnancy but vaccines (a drug and biological product) are perfectly "safe and effective."
Just about any drug used in pregnancy is being used "off label". I explained that before. The total accumulation of evidence on vaccines shows they are safe and effective in pregnancy. Your denying it exists does not make that evidence go away.
Quote:
The CDC holds the patent to many of these vaccines so it isn't surprising that they want them to be LABELED as "safe and effective" regardless of whether they really are.
Which vaccines are patented by the CDC? all that I can find is that CDC owns a patent for an Ebolavirus. Why? So that it cannot be used for profit.
"The CDC does hold some patents on life forms, but it generally does this for the common good, so a commercial company can't come along and patent it. The CDC lets researchers work with the strain without fees."
Changes in the laws since that patent was awarded bar patenting "life forms." Nothing nefarious going on, as Snopes clearly describes.
The studies have been done, and they show that vaccines are safe and effective.
The ingredients in vaccines have been studied and are not toxic in the doses used. Ethyl alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome.
Do I now understand that you are retracting your opinion that wine (which also contains other trace elements that could be toxic to the fetus) during pregnancy is safe to use to "relax" someone having contractions?
Your reading comprehension must have waned with age. The "glass of wine" in question would not cause fetal alcohol syndrome. You present a strawman to detract from what is said. The ingredients in vaccines have NOT been studied SCIENTIFICALLY and that is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The people who make the vaccines do not do those studies. Women, especially pregnant women, have historically pretty well been excluded from such studies, out of concern for the fetus. That means that penicillin is category B. antacids are category B. Colace is category C. Vaginal antifungals are category C.
There is a mountain of evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccines in pregnancy that have been done by researchers other than the manufacturer. You cannot seem to grasp the concept that the package insert is a legal document and only includes information from trials done by the drug company. It should not be that hard to understand.
"One study of approximately 2,000 pregnant women who received IIV3 during pregnancy demonstrated no increase in malignancies during infancy or early childhood (243). A matched case-control study of 252 pregnant women who received IIV3 within the 6 months before delivery determined no adverse events after vaccination among pregnant women and no difference in pregnancy outcomes compared with 826 pregnant women who were not vaccinated (244). A case-control analysis of data from six health-care organizations participating in the VSD found no significant increase in the risk for pregnancy loss in the 4 weeks following seasonal influenza vaccination (245). A review of health registry data in Norway noted an increased risk for fetal death associated with pandemic 2009(H1N1) infection, but no increased risk of fetal mortality associated with vaccination (246). During 2000–2003, when an estimated 2 million pregnant women were vaccinated, only 20 adverse events among women who received IIV3 were reported to VAERS, including nine injection site reactions, eight systemic reactions (e.g., fever, headache, and myalgia), and three miscarriages (247). Background rates of miscarriage vary from 10.4% in women aged <25 years to 22.4% in women aged >34 years (248); considering the number of pregnant women vaccinated, miscarriage following (but not attributable to) influenza vaccination would not be an unexpected event. Recent reviews of studies pertaining to seasonal (249–251) and monovalent 2009(H1N1) (250,251) inactivated influenza vaccines in pregnancy concluded that no evidence exists to suggest harm to the fetus from maternal vaccination."
Doctors avoid vaccinating during the first trimester specifically because miscarriage is common and it would be easy for the patient to blame the miscarriage on the vaccine.
You prove my point once again. There is a risk to the fetus so they do after-market "research" instead. You cannot deny this. The data is skewed and the "study" is designed accordingly. ANY toxins should be avoided during pregnancy is the best way to ensure a healthy birth. That you deny this is proof of your hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The fallacy here is that the substances in vaccines have been shown not to be toxic in the amounts used.
Again with the cognitive dissonance. ANY toxins are toxic. Just because they are labeled as vaccines does not make them less toxic! You show such a religious fervor with vaccines that it is hard to believe anything you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
What exclusions?
Excluded those vaccinated in the first two months means that those miscarriages are not included even though every doctor will tell you that over stimulating the immune system can cause spontaneous abortion. The body rejects the fetus instead of embracing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Cohort size? This one on Tdap included 123,494 women.
26,229 (21%) received Tdap during pregnancy and 97,265 did not in that study. The sampling is not the same. Also, VSD is a vaccine reporting system. That is a statistical error in the making! Suppose 3 in the vaccine group had miscarriages but 3 in the non-vaccine group had miscarriages.. that means the vaccine is safe right? Flawed science at it's best.
"The VSD uses electronic health data from each participating site. This includes information on vaccines - the kind of vaccine that is given to each patient, date of vaccination, and other vaccinations given on the same day. The VSD also uses information on medical illnesses that have been diagnosed at doctors’ offices, urgent care visits, emergency department visits and hospital stays."
The difference is that VAERS is not the only source of data. The anti-vax folks like to use VAERS to claim every report is proof of an adverse effect, whereas the studies confirming the safety of vaccines actually investigate the reports and assign a probability of causality. The Vaccine Safety Datalink uses cases for which all the medical information is available.
A slippery slope you are on here. The CDC admits that the majority of it's info on safety of vaccines in pregnancy are VAERS reports. Second is VSD reports which I already showed are severely flawed. It means that every adverse effect would need to be reported by an VSD reporter. In my state that is Group Health. Yet there is no ER at GHC! So any adverse effect would not be reported to GHC. So convenient for the study! AND so anti-science it is laughable!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I have. I can't help it if you are unable to understand them.
I'm pretty sure from your posts that you are the one who doesn't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I do not believe you have "used" anyone like that.
I just did with Dr. Mikovits who has an impeccable education and record yet had false reports of her "taking" notes home. That discredits her work? Really? Yet this dork from Skeptical Raptor is your source of "scientific" information. Please!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Vaccines "stir up" the immune system the same way infections do. The difference is that the infections "stir up" a lot more. Being given a vaccine exposes the immune system to a tiny amount of inactivated bacteria or virus. Getting the disease exposes the immune system to vast amounts of reproducing bacteria and replicating virus.
Here is where your logic is fatally flawed. No one gets Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and adjuvants at the same time. No one gets Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis plus adjuvants at the same time. The immune system is overwhelmed with the vaccines. Can you tell me a case study where all the vaccination "germs" caused disease at the same time with said adjuvants? Of course not. Don't be obtuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The manufacturers do not do studies in pregnant women because of lawyers, not scientists.
Because...
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Just about any drug used in pregnancy is being used "off label". I explained that before. The total accumulation of evidence on vaccines shows they are safe and effective in pregnancy. Your denying it exists does not make that evidence go away.
And your saying it is so with flawed studies doesn't make it "safe and effective" anymore than those flawed studies prove otherwise. It's a risk to take vaccines in any circumstance INCLUDING (and maybe more so) in pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Which vaccines are patented by the CDC? all that I can find is that CDC owns a patent for an Ebolavirus. Why? So that it cannot be used for profit.
"The CDC does hold some patents on life forms, but it generally does this for the common good, so a commercial company can't come along and patent it. The CDC lets researchers work with the strain without fees."
Changes in the laws since that patent was awarded bar patenting "life forms." Nothing nefarious going on, as Snopes clearly describes.
Snopes? Not-for-profit ebola vaccine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The studies have been done, and they show that vaccines are safe and effective.
If anything you have shown your ignorance and that vaccines are not "safe and effective" (which they are not) which is why I use the quotes around such nonsense.
Last edited by katjonjj; 12-18-2015 at 10:24 PM..
Reason: grammar and quote error
Your reading comprehension must have waned with age. The "glass of wine" in question would not cause fetal alcohol syndrome. You present a strawman to detract from what is said. The ingredients in vaccines have NOT been studied SCIENTIFICALLY and that is the problem.
The studies have been done. Your disbelief in them does not make them go away.
Quote:
You prove my point once again. There is a risk to the fetus so they do after-market "research" instead. You cannot deny this. The data is skewed and the "study" is designed accordingly. ANY toxins should be avoided during pregnancy is the best way to ensure a healthy birth. That you deny this is proof of your hypocrisy.
No, the manufacturers do not do them because the US legal system makes it too risky to study pregnant women. It's a legal decision, not a medical decision.
If you are going to allege that "data is skewed" - and how can it be if, according to you there are no studies - show us how. You cannot just claim "data is skewed". Show the evidence to support your opinion.
Quote:
Again with the cognitive dissonance. ANY toxins are toxic. Just because they are labeled as vaccines does not make them less toxic! You show such a religious fervor with vaccines that it is hard to believe anything you say.
If they are not toxic, then they are not toxins. The substances in vaccines that you are screaming "toxic" about have been used safely for 60 years in millions of doses of vaccines.
Quote:
Excluded those vaccinated in the first two months means that those miscarriages are not included even though every doctor will tell you that over stimulating the immune system can cause spontaneous abortion. The body rejects the fetus instead of embracing it.
Doctors do not vaccinate in early pregnancy because they do not want parents to blame early miscarriages (which are common) on vaccines. If the vaccination is not even done in early pregnancy there is nothing to exclude.
Quote:
26,229 (21%) received Tdap during pregnancy and 97,265 did not in that study. The sampling is not the same. Also, VSD is a vaccine reporting system. That is a statistical error in the making! Suppose 3 in the vaccine group had miscarriages but 3 in the non-vaccine group had miscarriages.. that means the vaccine is safe right? Flawed science at it's best.
You obviously do not understand how medical studies are done, much less the statistical analysis methods used. It is not necessary for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups to be identical sizes to compare them. How in the world is the VSD a "statistical error in the making? That makes no sense whatsoever. The very fact that you think the raw numbers in each group would be compared shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Risks would be calculated for each group, then compared.
Quote:
A slippery slope you are on here. The CDC admits that the majority of it's info on safety of vaccines in pregnancy are VAERS reports. Second is VSD reports which I already showed are severely flawed. It means that every adverse effect would need to be reported by an VSD reporter. In my state that is Group Health. Yet there is no ER at GHC! So any adverse effect would not be reported to GHC. So convenient for the study! AND so anti-science it is laughable!
You have repeatedly been told that VAERS is only a method of identifying potential problems. It does not determine causality.
"The VSD uses electronic health data from each participating site. This includes information on vaccines - the kind of vaccine that is given to each patient, date of vaccination, and other vaccinations given on the same day. The VSD also uses information on medical illnesses that have been diagnosed at doctors’ offices, urgent care visits, emergency department visits and hospital stays."
Quote:
I just did with Dr. Mikovits who has an impeccable education and record yet had false reports of her "taking" notes home. That discredits her work? Really? Yet this dork from Skeptical Raptor is your source of "scientific" information.
She did take the notebooks home. You might want to read more about what she did. She also participated in research that disproved her original study. Links are up thread.
Quote:
Here is where your logic is fatally flawed. No one gets Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and adjuvants at the same time. No one gets Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis plus adjuvants at the same time. The immune system is overwhelmed with the vaccines. Can you tell me a case study where all the vaccination "germs" caused disease at the same time with said adjuvants? Of course not. Don't be obtuse.
You just keep piling on your misunderstanding of vaccines and infectious diseases. I never said anything about getting diseases and adjuvants at the same time. What I said was that the effect of vaccines on the immune system is tiny compared to the effect of infectious diseases on the immune system. That applies whether it's a pregnant woman or anyone else.
Quote:
And your saying it is so with flawed studies doesn't make it "safe and effective" anymore than those flawed studies prove otherwise. It's a risk to take vaccines in any circumstance INCLUDING (and maybe more so) in pregnancy.
You have yet to show that any study (do they exist or not?) is "flawed". All you have demonstrated is your ignorance about how medical studies are conducted and statistical analysis.
Quote:
Snopes? Not-for-profit ebola vaccine?
You were the one that stated that the CDC patents vaccines. Name them. Which vaccines has the CDC patented?
Quote:
If anything you have shown your ignorance and that vaccines are not "safe and effective" (which they are not) which is why I use the quotes around such nonsense.
I have provided the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Where is your evidence that they are not? Published, peer reviewed studies, please.
The studies have been done. Your disbelief in them does not make them go away.
No, the manufacturers do not do them because the US legal system makes it too risky to study pregnant women. It's a legal decision, not a medical decision.
If you are going to allege that "data is skewed" - and how can it be if, according to you there are no studies - show us how. You cannot just claim "data is skewed". Show the evidence to support your opinion.
If they are not toxic, then they are not toxins. The substances in vaccines that you are screaming "toxic" about have been used safely for 60 years in millions of doses of vaccines.
Doctors do not vaccinate in early pregnancy because they do not want parents to blame early miscarriages (which are common) on vaccines. If the vaccination is not even done in early pregnancy there is nothing to exclude.
You obviously do not understand how medical studies are done, much less the statistical analysis methods used. It is not necessary for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups to be identical sizes to compare them. How in the world is the VSD a "statistical error in the making? That makes no sense whatsoever. The very fact that you think the raw numbers in each group would be compared shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Risks would be calculated for each group, then compared.
You have repeatedly been told that VAERS is only a method of identifying potential problems. It does not determine causality.
"The VSD uses electronic health data from each participating site. This includes information on vaccines - the kind of vaccine that is given to each patient, date of vaccination, and other vaccinations given on the same day. The VSD also uses information on medical illnesses that have been diagnosed at doctors’ offices, urgent care visits, emergency department visits and hospital stays."
She did take the notebooks home. You might want to read more about what she did. She also participated in research that disproved her original study. Links are up thread.
You just keep piling on your misunderstanding of vaccines and infectious diseases. I never said anything about getting diseases and adjuvants at the same time. What I said was that the effect of vaccines on the immune system is tiny compared to the effect of infectious diseases on the immune system. That applies whether it's a pregnant woman or anyone else.
You have yet to show that any study (do they exist or not?) is "flawed". All you have demonstrated is your ignorance about how medical studies are conducted and statistical analysis.
You were the one that stated that the CDC patents vaccines. Name them. Which vaccines has the CDC patented?
I have provided the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Where is your evidence that they are not? Published, peer reviewed studies, please.
You have demonstrated throughout this very long thread that your reading comprehension and logic are really bad. I think it's pretty obvious that you have a huge bias whereas many posters contributing to this thread are open to both sides and simply want transparency and better safety studies. A CDC study of statistics with flawed reporting and using VAERS is not a proper study. You deny this but it is pretty obvious to everyone looking at it with an open mind.
These type of statistical studies for the safety of your car would not cut it and it shouldn't for the sake of an unborn child either.
You can't even admit that trying to induce immune responses for several diseases at the same time is contrary to what the body would naturally deal with and has a greater potential to cause adverse reactions. It sad really but you do what you feel is right. Many of us want the government to stay out of our health choices if you disagree then so be it.
YA CDC study of statistics with flawed reporting and using VAERS is not a proper study.
Show us a "study of statistics with flawed reporting" and explain why it is flawed.
Quote:
You can't even admit that trying to induce immune responses for several diseases at the same time is contrary to what the body would naturally deal with and has a greater potential to cause adverse reactions. It sad really but you do what you feel is right. Many of us want the government to stay out of our health choices if you disagree then so be it.
More ignorance about infectious disease and immunology. At any given time the body is responding to multiple bacteria and viruses, all in larger numbers than what is found in a vaccine and all capable of multiplying, resulting in a much larger antigen load for the immune system to deal with. One simple cold will produce more antigens than all of the vaccines anyone will ever receive.
The author is an infectious disease specialist, by the way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My stance on it is very consistent. NO toxins of any kind during pregnancy.
