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.
The six months is in an immunodeficient recipient. Live virus vaccines are actually contraindicated in that group. For immunocompetent individuals it is 30 days. The live virus oral polio vaccine is no longer used in the US, by the way.
The numbers are not arbitrary. They are based on the known time intervals from vaccination to the onset of the event for which compensation is being paid.
These are just guidelines for awarding compensation not a scientific rule that any symptom onset post 2 months is not due to vaccination. Also ITP following MMR can be awarded anytime disease/symptom onset begins in a year following vaccination
These are just guidelines for awarding compensation not a scientific rule that any symptom onset post 2 months is not due to vaccination. Also ITP following MMR can be awarded anytime disease/symptom onset begins in a year following vaccination
The guidelines are based on the clinical presentation of the condition.
ITP after MMR vaccine typically develops two to six weeks later.
The 12 months for MMR is "If strain determination is not done or if laboratory testing is inconclusive".
That does not mean that ITP after MMR happens 12 months later.
You just used the word “typically” which means a minority of cases happens after 6 weeks. In other words, your 2 months is not a cut off but rather a general guideline when most symptoms occur.
You just used the word “typically” which means a minority of cases happens after 6 weeks. In other words, your 2 months is not a cut off but rather a general guideline when most symptoms occur.
Now you are getting desperate. The time frames in that list were chosen to be generous.
The point which has been lost in this interchange is that the adverse events due to vaccines do not take years to develop.
Now you are getting desperate. The time frames in that list were chosen to be generous.
The point which has been lost in this interchange is that the adverse events due to vaccines do not take years to develop.
Nope, it’s you. You put 2 months as a cut off which is false even according to the table you cited.
And in reality long term effects can occur years after they’re just hard to prove a casual inference due to the time frame. The longer you’re out the harder to prove it is. Look up ASIA.
Nope, it’s you. You put 2 months as a cut off which is false even according to the table you cited.
And in reality long term effects can occur years after they’re just hard to prove a casual inference due to the time frame. The longer you’re out the harder to prove it is. Look up ASIA.
What I originally said is "What vaccine has ever had 'long term effects' that did not manifest within about two months of the vaccine being given?"
The table is based on the known time frames of the conditions listed. None of them happen years out.
"But what’s the evidence for the existence of ASIA? It’s not very good. New Zealand commissioned Rohan Ameratunga, a practicing allergy and immunology specialist, to review the evidence for the existence of ASIA. His conclusions were not kind, as noted in two review articles. For example, Ameratunga et al bluntly noted:
Current data do not support the causation of ASIA by vaccine adjuvants containing aluminum, which should be of reassurance to patients undergoing routine immunizations as well as to those undergoing allergen-specific IT.
In another review, Ameratunga et al also conclude:
We have recently reviewed ASIA as defined by its authors. We have shown that the definition of ASIA is imprecise and includes all patients with an autoimmune disorder as well as potentially the entire population. Application of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality does not support ASIA as an outcome of exposure to aluminium containing adjuvants in vaccines. The advocates of ASIA highlight animal models as evidence for the existence of the disorder. However, as this review will demonstrate, animal models purporting to support the existence of ASIA have methodological, analytical and ethical flaws which, in our view, refute the existence of the condition."
"But what’s the evidence for the existence of ASIA? It’s not very good. New Zealand commissioned Rohan Ameratunga, a practicing allergy and immunology specialist, to review the evidence for the existence of ASIA. His conclusions were not kind, as noted in two review articles. For example, Ameratunga et al bluntly noted:
Current data do not support the causation of ASIA by vaccine adjuvants containing aluminum, which should be of reassurance to patients undergoing routine immunizations as well as to those undergoing allergen-specific IT.
In another review, Ameratunga et al also conclude:
We have recently reviewed ASIA as defined by its authors. We have shown that the definition of ASIA is imprecise and includes all patients with an autoimmune disorder as well as potentially the entire population. Application of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality does not support ASIA as an outcome of exposure to aluminium containing adjuvants in vaccines. The advocates of ASIA highlight animal models as evidence for the existence of the disorder. However, as this review will demonstrate, animal models purporting to support the existence of ASIA have methodological, analytical and ethical flaws which, in our view, refute the existence of the condition."
Science based medicine is a blog, not a scientific source. They’re free to their opinions but they’re just their opinions.
Everything they said in those quoted posts is garbage fyi. What methodological or analytical flaws in the murine results? None whatsoever! They just cry it’s not translatable to humans.
Science based medicine is a blog, not a scientific source. They’re free to their opinions but they’re just their opinions.
Everything they said in those quoted posts is garbage fyi. What methodological or analytical flaws in the murine results? None whatsoever! They just cry it’s not translatable to humans.
The blog cites the reasoning behind the opinions.
Are we not discussing humans? There is a link in the blog that directs here:
"All studies identified in this review have methodological, analytical and ethical flaws which invalidate a causal relationship between aluminium containing adjuvants and so-called ASIA. To date three publications by the proponents of ASIA have been withdrawn by the editors in chief of the journals Vaccine, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry and Rheumatology. As we show here, in contrast to these flawed animal models, there is robust human data refuting the existence of ASIA."
The flaws were sufficient to result in retraction, not once, but three times.
Last time I checked military was voluntary just like any organization there are polices if you choose not to follow them find another organization.
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.
