Whooping Cough Vaccine. Does it kill children? Information on vaccinating your child against Pertussis.

Childhood Vaccines and the truth?
Childhood Vaccines and the truth?
Are Vaccines really perfectly safe?
Are Vaccines really perfectly safe?
Can a vaccines kill your child too?
Can a vaccines kill your child too?
What's in childhood vaccines?
What's in childhood vaccines?
Inform yourself about Vaccines.
Inform yourself about Vaccines.
Mother delves into the harm caused by the Pertussis Vaccine
Mother delves into the harm caused by the Pertussis Vaccine
Educate yourself on all the facts and then decide
Educate yourself on all the facts and then decide
Did he have a valid point?
Did he have a valid point?
Get both sides of the argument first
Get both sides of the argument first
Educate yourself, don't just go on the PR Spins
Educate yourself, don't just go on the PR Spins
Good book dealing with Autism and thimerosal
Good book dealing with Autism and thimerosal
Was it really the UK Government and the vaccine manufacturers who had a Callous Disregard for its country's children?
Was it really the UK Government and the vaccine manufacturers who had a Callous Disregard for its country's children?

Do you think the Whooping Cough Vaccine is safe?

Do you think the Pertussis Vaccine is safe?

  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know
See results without voting

Justice for my Son

Are Vaccines Safe and Effective?

The facts about the Pertussis Vaccine

Here in Ireland there are many vaccines given as standard. When my daughter received her immunizations back in the early 2000’s I didn’t give the matter too much thought. All I knew was that my doctor said that they were all necessary and perfectly safe. The only one I considered faltering on at that time was the MMR Vaccine (Measles, Mumps and Rubella). I was aware that there was some controversy in the news about a potential link between MMR and Autism.

Then soon after that I heard that this Doctor Wakefield had been annihilated in the press because his research had been disproven and that there was now lots of scientific evidence to prove that there was no real danger after all. However recently I have read Dr Andrew Wakefields book Callous Disregard, and personally I now believe that the glossed over version of events the media portrayed about that infamous Lancet Report is very far from the truth of the whole matter.

So then I went ahead and vaccinated my daughter against Measles Mumps and Rubella as advised. She seemed to react pretty much the same as she did with her other vaccines i.e. she had a bit of a fever so I gave her some medicine and she was fine after a day or two.

I thought no more about the matter. Over the years she has had a few minor health concerns such as a tendency towards asthma, eczema problems and some minor surgery for reflux in her kidney but otherwise she has been healthy.

In 2007 I then had a son. So once again it came time to give him his childhood vaccinations. Even early on my son was very different to my daughter and he seemed to do some things that appeared to me to be a bit off the normal radar. Yet I was told to not listen to that niggling voice at the back of my mind i.e. he was just a boy being a boy. It was only because I was used to a girl that I found his behavior a bit different or not quite right.

Does Mom really know best after all?

Should I have trusted my gut instinct sooner? Now I would say a resounding yes but isn’t knowledge always a great help after the event has already happened?

Subsequently when my son was three he was diagnosed with Autism. Later other diagnoses were also added i.e. ADHD and Developmental Delay. While he was always a bit different we did notice that his problems did seem to it become more pronounced in his second year i.e. after the MMR Vaccine. Even then though I didn’t really believe there was any link. Vaccines were perfectly safe and necessary right? Or were they I eventually began to wonder.

Recently it was time for my son to be thinking about his Booster Immunizations. This time I decided okay well hold on a minute first. Perhaps I should read up a bit on immunisizing your child. This was just to reassure myself what I already know i.e. childhood vaccines were perfectly safe. Also that there must be no truth whatsoever, to all the scaremongering stories that kept popping up every time I read an article about Autism.

Do your own research about vaccinating your child and be informed before making up your mind:

So I decided I would do a bit of my own research while trying to keep an open mind on the whole issue until I knew a bit more.

N.B. So before I continue I would like to re-iterate that the opinions expressed in this article are merely my own. They are based on the research I have done on this topic over the last few weeks. If you think its rubbish fair enough, that’s completely your choice.

In this article I don’t deal with any of the controversy surrounding the MMR Vaccine. Instead I am writing about the first vaccine I researched and one of the earliest given to children here in Ireland i.e. The Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Vaccine.

Pertussis Vaccine – Whooping Cough

The first book I came across about Vaccines was written by an Irish mother called Vera Duffy, i.e. ‘Justice for my Son.’

Here’s the descriptive passage from her book,

“This is every family’s worst nightmare.

It is the story of how a healthy five-month-old baby was reduced to a vegetative state by a medical procedure that the public authorities and the medical profession have refused to accept was in any way responsible.

Alan Duffy was brain damaged following the whooping cough vaccine and lived until he was a skeletal and helpless 22 year old. He died on New Year’s Eve, 1995.

Justice For My Son tells of how Alan’s mother, Vera, patiently and laboriously acquired the knowledge and the evidence over many years, evidence she believes many eminent medical people and the government of the day suppressed. It is evidence of a link between the vaccine and what happened to Alan and exposes a kind of ‘Russian Roulette’ accepted by vaccination programmes.

In fact the Dublin City Coroner used his own department funds to make an appeal on Vera’s behalf to the Supreme Court when he failed to get the government to indemnify him. By this unprecedented action, he demonstrated his belief of where the truth of the matter lies.

This fight won’t bring Alan back. But his mother will not give up until she finally gets justice for her son.”

Can the Whooping Cough Vaccine be harmful?

My first reaction to this book was, ‘but I thought it was only the MMR Vaccine that was under scrutiny? Aren’t we always been told that there is no actual scientific proof that any of the childhood vaccines cause adverse reactions like brain damage? To that point I really believed that nobody who had ever researched vaccines ever found any real scientific data that the Pertussis Vaccine could be harmful in some cases.

When in actual fact many scientists and doctor’s have already found lots of evidence that the Whooping Cough Vaccine can cause quite a few adverse reactions. In some instances so much so that parents have in fact successfully sued Governments’ and Pharmaceutical Companies because of adverse reactions to the Pertussis Vaccine. This has included families where children have actually died after being vaccinated. Also many parents have won their cases in court and received large amounts of compensation.

These revelations really made me stop and think a bit more. Vera Duffy’s book, ‘Justice for my son,’ was very unnerving to read because it happened here in Ireland. This was a true story and there was no getting away from the facts or the overwhelming medical evidence that the Pertussis Vaccine had caused her son's irreversible brain damage.

Vera Duffy also mentions in the book that there are countless other stories like her son’s out there. Another Irish mother in the book actually successfully sued a Pharmaceutical Giant but as part of her settlement she had to sign a waiver agreeing never to talk about the details of her son’s case again. This usually is a condition of compensation. To ensure that the rest of us are kept totally in the dark about the truth about vaccines.

Is there evidence that the Pertussis vaccine can be harmful?

As I did a bit more research on this matter it was confirmed over and over that the scientific community are already perfectly well aware of the amount of damage that vaccines can cause. Yet it is always justified by an overall ethos of: ‘It’s for the larger good as it protects the integrity of the Herd.’ Yes folks we are all considered to be nothing more than a global herd of cattle. So if a certain small percentage of our children die or are seriously injured by vaccines that’s considered to be okay because then it means that the rest of the herd will survive.

The biggest problem I have with this, 'overall immunity rates of the Herd,' theory is as follows:

As mentioned a lot of vaccinated children who react to vaccinations do not die but instead spend their whole lives living with severe disabilities. Their parents must then also devote the rest of their lives to caring for their special needs child. The family often suffer from financial hardship and the breakdown of the parents relationship is also another common side effect of living with a child who will always have high care needs

This situation could and should often be avoided. People should always be allowed adequate access to all the information surrounding the documented evidence about all vaccines.

It is a little known fact too that it is common knowledge among the medical profession and the scientific community that there certain ‘subset’s of children’, who are considered to be, ‘genetically more susceptible’, to vaccine damage than other children. These children should not receive vaccines in the same way or in the same quantities as other children. It is still rare for parents to be informed of this until it is already too late to protect their child. Most only realize this when they start to look for reasons as to why their child suddenly left them and started to suffer form severe mental and physical disabilities.

Subset of children genetically more susceptible to Vaccine Damage:

Compiling this list was extremely difficult as it is not something that is not really readily available for viewing. Research is often done on the safety of Vaccines but it is rare for research to be carried out specifically on the subset of children who appear to suffer from additional adverse affects to vaccines.

NB: Other research articles may refer to this subset of susceptible children briefly but usually only vaguely or non-specifically. So the following list is not a conclusive one and cannot be considered as such at this time.

The more vulnerable children seem to come from families who have a history of the following conditions:

These are all essentially conditions that can be classed as ‘Autoimmune diseases’. As this list is very long I am only listing the most common and easily recognisable conditions in this article. For a much more comprehensive list click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease

  • Encephalomyelitis
  • Alzheimers
  • Alopecia
  • Arthritis
  • Addison’s Disease
  • Inner ear disease which is also known as Meniers Disease which can include hearing loss and vertigo
  • Purpura
  • Autoimmune Autism or Autistic Disorder also known as PANDAS
  • Anemia
  • Hepatitis
  • Cardiomyopathy (heart problems)
  • Chrohn’s Disease
  • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  • Diabetes Type 1
  • Epilepsy
  • Graves Disease
  • Guillain- Barré Syndrome
  • Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Lupus
  • Parkinson’s Disease
  • Thyroid Disease
  • Psoriasis
  • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
  • Celiac Disease
  • From http://www.informedparent.co.uk/info

…Vaccines injected into babies do not in any way, shape or form resemble an inhaled or swallowed germ because they are changed, attenuated, and injected as multi-antigens into the body. Consequently, because of the by-passing of the Th1 branch of the system there is over-stimulation of the Th2 branch, which teaches the body to be in a chronically reactive mode. People who have allergies, asthma and auto-immune disease have what is known as a Th2-skewed immune system.

So it is important to bear this in mind when deciding on any one of the injectable vaccines on offer, as they will all trigger this unnatural response to take place…

What is the Pertussis Virus?

Neil Z Miller defines Pertussis in his book about the same i.e. Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective? As being:

Pertussis is a contagious disease caused by a bacterium that affects the respiratory system. Sometimes called whooping cough, this disease gets its name from the high pitched whooping noise victims make when they try to catch their breath after severe coughing attacks. Symptoms progress through three stages. In the first stage, which usually lasts one to two weeks, victims have trouble breathing, and may develop a cough or fever. In the second stage, which usually lasts two to three weeks, severe coughing attacks occur during the night. The attacks can lead to inadequate oxygen, which can cause convulsions. During this stage death can occur. In the final stage, coughing lessens and recovery begins.

Is the Pertussis Vaccination really effective?

Once again I refer to the book, 'Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective? by Neil Z. Miller who complied an analysis of the safety and effectiveness of a large number of childhood and adult vaccines in this book.

It is stated in the book that...A study published by the Journal of Pediatrics indicates that Pertussis Vaccine may be only 40 to 45% effective...

It is also stated that ...immunity is not sustained in the long term and after 12 years 95% of children will no longer be immune to Pertussis. Many documented examples of this scenario are then given one being...

In 1986, 1300 cases of Pertussis were reported in Kansas. Of the patients with known vaccination status, 90% were considered to be, 'adequately vaccinated.'

Scientific Research into the safety of the Pertussis Vaccine:

My copy of the book Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective? was published in 2012. Neil Z. Miller said the following about the scientific evidence that the Pertussis Vaccine is considered to be very safe at that time.

...The United States never conducted its own clinical tests to determine whether the Pertussis Vaccine is safe and effective. Instead, it relies on data collected by Great Britain during the 1950s on children between six months and one-and-a-half-years of age. Even though 42 of these children had convulsions within 28 days, 80% of the babies were 14 months of age or older, and the tests were designed to test the efficacy (not safety) of the vaccine. ..

Compositions of the Pertussis Vaccine:

In Ireland as in many countries the Pertussis Vaccine is not given as a single vaccine. Instead a number of other immunizations are also combined into the same injection as the most up to date schedule below indicates. As the years pass it appears that more and more vaccinations are being combined together. Many adverse effects have been noted from the older DPT Vaccine which combined the Diptheria, Pertussis and Tetanus viruses. In Ireland now this combination has now risen to a six in one injection as well as administering another vaccine at the same time.

6 in 1

Diphtheria

Tetanus

Whooping cough (Pertussis)

Hib (Haemophilus influenzae B)

Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis)

Hepatitis B

PCV

(Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine)

These vaccines are administered at two months, four months and six months.

You will rarely if ever be given both sides of the story by a Medical Professional i.e. that it is also possible that the Vaccine itself rather than the bacteria itself could kill or cause serious injury to your child. Instead you will be reassured that that adverse reactions are ‘usually,’ mild and ‘very rare’.

Adverse reactions to the Pertussis Vaccine.:

Doctors more often than not do not report adverse reactions to vaccines instead a child who may have died from such a reaction will be given another cause of death. The most commonly listed one being, ‘Sudden Infant Death Syndrome’ formerly known as a ‘Cot Death’.

Children who have received Pertussis as a mixed vaccine component can have the following adverse effects:

  • Fevers of up to 106 degrees.
  • Pain or swelling
  • Diarrhea
  • Projectile Vomiting
  • High pitched screaming
  • Excessive Sleepiness
  • Inconsolable Crying Bouts
  • Seizures
  • Convulsions
  • Collapse
  • Shock
  • Breathing Problems
  • Brain Damage
  • Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

In one Report on the side effects of the Pertussis or whooping cough vaccine one child in 600 had severe reactions. One in 875 children had shock-collapse and convulsions in another study. In a more recent study 1 in 100 children reacted with convulsions, collapse or high-pitched screaming and 1 in 3 of those children sustained permanent brain damage.

In a study of 103 children with sudden infant death syndrome, 70% died within 3 weeks of the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough) vaccine and 37% died within a week of the vaccine.

N.B. All the details and the sources of these research studies are listed in the book Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? By Neil Z. Miller.

Whether you believe the benefits of Vaccines outweigh the potential risk is every parent’s choice to make. Personally I wish I had informed myself much better before my children were vaccinated. Especially for my son who now has multiple disabilities.

More by this Author


Comments 33 comments

thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 3 years ago from Ireland Author

You are welcome, glad you liked it.


CFox 3 years ago

Whooping cough kills. By not immunising you are risking your child's life and that of those around them.

To the writer: You are misleading others by misrepresenting data, this is unfathomably dangerous.

To others reading this: Doctors are not trying to mislead you, go and speak to your local GP about this issue by all means but DO NOT take this as gospel and be misled by fear mongering. Seek to understand. This article is fear and misunderstanding represented as fact.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 3 years ago from Ireland Author

Thank you for your comment CFox. I am not intending to mislead anyone, everything I have written in this article is based on the scientific data that I have researched. I nearly died from Whooping cough myself as a baby that I caught from my sister who by the way had been vaccinated already. I have sought to understand myself through research and that's what led me to writing this article. I learned to do this after being told for nearly two years by my GP of the time that there was nothing wrong with my son even when though it was blatantly obvious at the time that he was in fact autistic. That led me to conclude that I needed to take out the science journals myself and read them, this is much more enlightening than simply taking one persons word for your child's future health. I am not asking anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate I am simply putting the facts and statistics on the table and then I hope everyone can at least consider the scientific evidence on both sides before making an informed decision about their child's future health. I respect everyone's decision either way and I just ask that other's allow me the same right. Thanks very much for reading too.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

A couple of things:

Adverse reactions to vaccines are acknowledged and clearly stated. No one is trying to hide the fact that vaccines are unfortunately not without risk. That said, the risk of a serious reaction to a vaccine is much, much lower than adverse effects from the diseases we vaccinate against. If it's 100% safety you're looking for, you're not going to find it anywhere, in any facet of life.

Autism often presents around the same time the MMR is given. People look at the time frame and say "Hey, there looks to be a correlation." I understand that people want to find answers. It's frustrating not knowing how or why some things happen.

There are a lot of questions swirling around the whooping cough vaccine at the moment, and it's possible that it needs some revision. That said, as long as the bulk of the scientific community and health care professionals endorse the vaccine, I will give it to any future children I have (as I gave it to my toddler).

As for your question "Does Mom Know Best?" well, when it comes to complex medical issues like infectious diseases and vaccinations... no, I don't think mom knows best because they spent a few weeks on Google. It's great to do your own research and I am always doing my own, but no amount of self-research can come close to replacing the knowledge and data the medical community has.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Thank you for commenting and I have considered your concerns. Firstly I would like to refer to your statement as below.

‘Adverse reactions to vaccines are acknowledged and clearly stated. No one is trying to hide the fact that vaccines are unfortunately not without risk.’

That is a true statement but one of the primary concerns that most parents have is the fact that the risk of adverse effects from vaccines may not be much lower than the risk from a disease. Just to take one example many scientists now feel that a child born with a higher risk of vaccine injury due to having with an imperfect immune system (as I go into more detail about in the article), such as those with an undiagnosed mitochondrial dysfunction (as in the highly publicised Hannah Poling case), are at a very high risk of experiencing adverse reactions to some vaccines. Yet how can the overall risk even be assessed when no scientific studies have ever been done to calculate this risk? Therefore I don’t accept your blanket statement that the risk is very small. As nobody yet within the scientific community to date, (if I am mistaken please refer me to the appropriate scientific papers on this matter), has been able to specifically assess what the risk actually is for these children. This is particularly worrying when it is now been suggested that the number of children born with a mitochondrial dysfunction has to date been completely under estimated due mostly to the difficulty in diagnosing this condition. So therefore that also means that previous safety studies in relation to many vaccines are not allowing for this relatively recent issue. Therefore this blanket statement of the risk being very small is now somewhat irrelevant because the necessary studies to allow for this new information have not been carried out.

As for the MMR Vaccine this article is not about that issue although I have looked into the issue somewhat and have read quite a few scientific journals and papers on the matter. Although my research in this area is still not complete.

As for your assessment of my ‘mom knows best,’ comment I have not just spent a few weeks googling this matter as you suggest but instead I have read numerous books and the scientific evidence that they also refer you to. I may be a mom but I am also an educated person who has qualification in the areas of journalism and am currently pursuing a degree in psychology and English so I am aware of how to research an academic issue and write an analysis of it. Surely you don’t assume that being a mom precludes you from having an analytical and educated brain? Also as you yourself have a psychology major and an English minor I am assuming you also have an analytical mind that is capable of reading up on these issues for yourself? What papers have you read and journals have you considered? As I am confident that as an educated person you don’t just blindly accept suspect facts when it comes to the safety of your toddler?

Also I had the Whooping Cough as a baby and I contracted it form my sister who had been vaccinated a couple of years before that so I do not take this issue lightly and I do understand the risk. I do not suggest that anyone should or should not vaccinate their kids. Only that they educate themselves first as unfortunately the day when you can just accept everything that you hear as being the truth are well and truly over.

Thanks for commenting and good luck with your career in Psychology.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

No, I wasn't suggesting that moms aren't capable of critical thinking or forming educated opinions. What I was trying to get across is that no amount of at-home research is going to come close to making us as knowledgeable on this issue as those who have studied it extensively in an academic setting, so those people - the ones who create vaccines, the ones who work for public health organizations and spend their entire careers keeping up to date with research, the ones who have studied infectious diseases - should still have some say in our decisions, and the overwhelming majority of those people still advocate vaccination.

It's really wonderful that you're studying and have access to scientific journals. Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to access peer-reviewed scientific articles unless you're a student or have a career in research. Most reputable journals require a monthly subscription and payment otherwise. So yes, a lot of the moms who do research on vaccines are reliant on Google.

As for certain children being susceptible to vaccine injury because of autoimmune disorders; that is pretty common knowledge and usually assessed before a child is vaccinated. I'm not sure where you're from, maybe it's different there, but here that is not a 'little known fact'. Children with compromised immune systems or specific allergies are discouraged from getting certain vaccines.

Re: risks being higher than people think, well, I think it can go both ways. You talked about SIDS in the article, and I think the assumption that SIDS is somehow related to vaccines is a huge leap and declaring risks where they don't exist. Most cases of SIDS occur between 2-4 months. The first round of vaccines are given at 2 months, so of course there is going to be a whole bunch of cases of SIDS taking place in the weeks after the vaccination. Since you're studying Psychology and it's pretty research heavy, I'm sure you're well aware that correlation does not imply causation. So, while you say risks of vaccines are underreported, I would argue that in many cases they're overreported.

I hope you don't think I'm attacking your views, I always appreciate discussing with someone who has done research and I can see that you're an intelligent woman. :) I apologize if my comment about spending a few weeks on Google was harsh.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Thanks for your reply Aime F and of course I don't mind that you have a differnet view, that's perfectly understandable. There is just a few things I would like to commnet on.

Firstly all of the research I have read has mostly been written by Professionals who have worked in Health Care or who are qualified Doctors, Pediatriciens, Neuroscientists, Medical practitioners or Scientific Researchers and it does seem to be becoming much more widespread globally for many within the field to speak out against what they have seen first hand i.e. a continuing sitaution where new research is repeatedly showing that the outdated evidence you rely on is no longer accurate.

Also no case study that I have ever read has implied or described that a child has been tested for autoimmune diseases or mitochondrial dysfunction when they are a day old i.e. this in when most vaccine schedules start so I am very baffled as to what kind of a health system you are used to but I would think it is pretty unique to your specific region. Also it is standard practice for doctors to recommend vaccines for many autoimmune compromised children even though there is an ever inmcreasing volume of research being published that does not agree that this is a good practice.

Also I have a print off in front of me now which is written by a company known as Sanofi Pasteur Inc and The Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases of Osaka University in Japan. It contains product information, research and findings in relation to 'Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed Tripedia,' It is a very interesting read but for the purpose of this reply I refer to Page 11 where in relation to reported adverse effects it lists (among many others), and I quote...'13 deaths in Tripedia vaccine recipients were reported..' of those 13 deaths, 7 were attributed to SIDS. I think this definitely suggests that this issue warrrants s bit more research and it is not valid to say there is no suggested correlation between vaccines and SIDS.

Then the report also says .....'Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic rhrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal seizure, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence...'

Then it goes on to talk about The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Do you have one of those in Canada or I suppose you don't know as you would not have had any need to find this out I suppose?. So there are just two examples of why this report is not very reassuring to the average parent and that do not make for happy reading. My main point is that I was never made aware of any of this infomration before I vaccinated my child and neither are most parents. It is no longer good enough to vaguely say 'adverse reactions are very rare so don't worry about it.' We need the Scientific evidence to back this up and what is being used at present is now being referred to as 'Cigarette Science,' and we all know the story there.

Thanks for stopping by again and good look on Hunpages.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

The Hep B vaccine is not given at birth here, so that perhaps has something to do with it. Where I am, by the time an infant receives their first vaccines they've had at least 3 checkups and doctors will have had an opportunity to flag any concerns. They have a checklist that you fill out asking about known disorders, allergies, adverse reactions to vaccines in the family, etc. before receiving any immunizations. I have a couple of friends who were told to hold off on vaccinations due their child's potential allergies or red flags for adverse reactions. It seems to be a 'better safe than sorry' attitude here regarding delaying vaccinations. I did not realize that was specific to my region; that's quite unfortunate. There is no National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program here.

I can definitely agree with you that education on both the pros and cons of vaccinations should be made more readily available to parents and that everyone should be armed with correct information from reputable sources.

Thanks for the chat. Enjoy your day. :)


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Its great that kids have so many checkups before any vaccine is given in your area but in reality it is highly unlikely that many of the issues that can lead to adverse effects from vaccines will be picked up before the child is eight weeks old, without extensive tests being done which rarely happens according to the research I have done not unless there is a diagnosed congenital abnormality in the family already. I've read time and time again that this usually isn't the case until far too late and it is only in hindsight that it is discovered that a child had a condition that genetically predisposed them to vaccine damage.

Also as there is a continuing ethos of doctors brushing off parents conerns that their child's illnesses could ever even have been possibly caused by a vaccine then it is usually unlikely that parents will even know there is a history of adverse reactions to vaccines in the family until a child has such a serious reaction to one that they are forced to do their own research and then eventaully it has to be conceded that the vaccine was the catalyst for vaccine injury.

I must say too that your doctor sounds pretty unique as I have never heard of any other suggesting a delay of vaccination due to something an allergy in the family (what sort of allergy would you be talking about?), instead mostly I hear that even children with things like severe asthma or maybe a condition like lactose intolerance or Coeliac Disease have all usaully been advised to proceed with the vaccine schedule as normal. It would be a great help to me to know what sort of allergy's, known disorders and adverse reactions to vaccines in the family that your friends have listed has has warranted a delay in their vaccinations? This is somehting I would love to get more details on for my own research.

Also last question I promise, where do you live exactly and is it possible at all to get access to the guidelines that doctors there follow in relation to vaccines? Sorry to ask but I would love to compare the guidelines there with those followed (or not as the case may be), here in Ireland.

Have a nice weekend, hope the sun is shining there now?


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

Certainly not all disorders will be diagnosed by 8 weeks, but I'm not sure there's any logical way around that. The known risks and side-effects, as well as medical conditions which jeopardize a safe immunization, are all clearly listed on vaccine handouts. It is of course anyone's choice to deny a vaccine on the basis of those things. It is my view, however, that if there were a substantial amount of good research to suggest the risks outweighed the benefits of vaccination, there would be a serious upheaval of the system. That, I'm sure, comes down to how much trust you put in the medical community. I choose to trust that they are keeping up on new research and have our children's best interests at heart. I know many people don't. I think, again, whether you believe doctors brush off supposed vaccine reactions comes down to perception.

My friend's daughter has a whole array of allergies, I'm not sure of the entire list but I know for sure she can't have eggs, dairy or wheat. All I know is that her doctor advised her to hold off vaccination "due to allergies". I can ask her to be more specific the next time I speak to her, I you're interested. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's probably just the sheer amount of allergies she had at such a young age that led the doctor to believe she may benefit from delaying until they can have a clearer picture of what was going on. Another friend was advised to discontinue vaccines for her children as her husband suffered a severe reaction as a child and her first child suffered a moderate reaction to his first vaccines (very high fever).

I'm not sure if it's possible to find super specific guidelines for doctors, but here's the immunization site specific to my area: http://immunizebc.ca/


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Thanks Aime F and as I said previously the bulk of autoimmune disorders that have led to countless adverse reactions to vaccines (including cases that have led to litigation and to many millions in compensation being paid to families), have not been diagnosed before eight weeks i.e. if they had then the adverse reaction and the ensuing damage to the brain that leads to many neurological disorders would never have occurred.

Consequently the parents would not have sued the state or the specific Vaccine Injury Board of their country whichever is applicable depending on where you live. I suppose as far as the Vaccine Manufacturers are concened its all down to economics really at the end of the day i.e. its cheaper to pay into these types of programmes (although most are paid by the state at the taxpayers expense because vaccine manufacturers have convinced Governments to indemnify them against litigation as otherwise their profits would be too adversely affected ) than to spend the many billions that would be necessary to make vaccines safer.

Also I would think that if all autoimmune diseases or congenital abnormalities that can cause an adverse reaction to a vaccine were known before the child received any vaccines then there would be a total falloff in vaccines as this would be a large number of children as I go into in a lot more detail in the article above.

Today 1 in 68 children have an ASD and 1 in 5 have a learning difficulty. These statistics speak for themselves I think and the fact that Governments have being paying out damages for children who have contracted autism (as well as other neurological injuries) after vaccines since the early 1990s suggests that there is a lot of evidence out there already to substantiate a link between vaccines and adverse reactions or else you certain that all these families would not have been compensated.

There is also an ever mounting pile of scientific evidence that strongly indicates that these adverse reactions more often than not occur because the vaccine schedule hasn't been updated with the latest research to make them safer. I am sure this may be more widely revealed in the years ahead although it is quite common knowledge already in many circles including among many of the Vaccine Manufacturers themselves who strangely enough are trying very hard to keep it to themselves (but not doing a very good job of it at them moment it appears).

Also it is Canada you live in isn't it? Its not Saskatoon by any cahnce is it?


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

Unfortunately things settled in civil courts (ie. governments paying out for autism) aren't indicative of scientific proof. While criminal court relies on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil rulings can often be pretty lax. You also have to keep in mind that the prosecution (presumably the parents of the child with autism) provide their own witnesses and pay for the proceedings. There are far too many conflicts and variables present in these cases to deduce that vaccines were actually a cause of autism. That type of situation would never, ever be considered as tangible proof of anything, scientifically speaking. It would just never fly as a reputable source. That's why the scientific community as a whole still rejects the link completely. I've come to realize that the autism debate is rather pointless because people are simply happy with different types of evidence. Some look at anecdotal evidence and are perfectly happy to accept it. Others, like myself, require concrete scientific proof.

I live in Vancouver, Canada.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

The facts speak for themselves i.e. both Governments and criminal courts have now paid out huge sums of money to compensate children who have been vaccine damaged. Also if the evidence wasn't there you can rest assured that either Governments or Vaccine Manufacturers would not have parted with a cent so I must reject your notion that there is no actual proof. We are not dealing with charities here who part with their money out of the goodness of their hearts after all. There have also been many cases in criminal courts in countries where it has not all been sewn up by Vaccine Manufacturers i.e. they have not been indemnified against litigation. I am glad you need concrete scientific proof so to start with you could check out the transcripts of the Hannah Poling Case, the Kenneth Best Case and the Valentina Bocco Case are just a few off hand examples.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

Hannah Poling: This case was settled in US Vaccine Court, which is a Federal Claims court, not a criminal court. They also operate on a 'no fault' system, meaning that vaccine manufacturers can and have been held accountable for damages regardless of if they were found to be at fault.

Kenneth Best: I don't get a lot of results for this one, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with autism? I was referring specifically to vaccines being proven to cause autism, not vaccine injuries in general. I'm well aware that those unfortunately happen.

Valentina Bocco: This same court also charged scientists with manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake. Far from a credible source.

I'd ask for more examples, but I'll be completely honest and say that I'm not going to budge on my thoughts regarding a court's rulings having any implications about scientific proof, so it's likely a pointless endeavor.

Thanks anyway! If you're interested in how various courts work and the standard of proof that they require, I recommend taking some Criminology classes for your open credits. If your program offers a Psychology & Law course that would also touch on it a bit. Good luck with your studies.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

You are very well versed on the various cases I must say. Interesting what you say about Hannah Poling but I suppose the Vaccine Manufacturers defintely can't be held to be at fault in the US when the US Government has long since agreed to indemnify all Vaccine Manufactures against all litigation i.e. that is why the Government pays out instead of the Vaccine Manufacturers and they can't be held accountable it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact or whether they may actaully be at fault or not. But lets face it whether the Government or the Vaccine Manuafacturer carries the can for the destruction of families lives the bottom line is still the same i.e. compensation was paid because there was proof that because Hannah Poling had an underlying Mitochondrial Dysfunction that meant she was at high risk of Vaccine Damage. So when she was vaccinted

damage did occur and as a result she had Encephalitis which manifested itself in her displaying symptoms that were described as being identical to those you would see in an autistic child.

Kenneth Best was an Irish child back in the 1960s who suffered severe brain damage after the Pertussis (Whooping Coungh) vaccine and as you say it is not an autism case but just another example of the damage other vaccines can cause and just to re-iterate that autism is not always the adverse outcome and that there can be many other problems too. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome being another as I discussed with you earlier.

Your claim about the court that ruled on the Valentina Bocco has no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the case and when I google your claim I get absolutely nothing to substantiate what you say? Where did you pull this information from? Maybe it was just someone messing around or spoofing you I think?

Thanks for your advice about law. Is that where you get your own extensive knowledge of it from i.e. did you study some Criminology classes for your open credits? If you did you might have some idea of the workings of the law but it wouldn't have given you any information on the science about autism would it? Thank you too for your good wishes as I already said I hope your studies bring you success in Psychology too.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

Here's a link to the story about the scientists convicted of manslaughter:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89L13V201...

I did take a bulk of my unassigned credits in Criminology. I'm far from being an expert, but it does give some introductory information regarding the justice system (and the differences between criminal and civil cases).

There was never information on how courts handle autism cases as that's oddly specific for undergraduate studies. As far as the science behind autism is concerned, that is briefly touched upon in undergrad if you take childhood development courses within your Psych degree. To really study autism at an in-depth level one would have to get a graduate degree in Childhood Development and choose to narrow in on autism in their thesis.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Thanks for that link although I have to admit I am confused as to what its relvance is in terms of what we discussed? Other unrelated cases that were heard in a court just don't interest me at all. To be honest I could probably list a number of Irish cases that have come before the courts and say I didn't agree with their findings either. For example we've had cases where our top politicians have been caught running around with suitcases stuffed with dubiously acquired money and then in court they have said 'we just didn't know what was in the suitcase or where it came from?' but unfortuntely they were entitled to be heard so I think you just can't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak i.e. say you have no faith in the judicial system of a whole country simply because they heard one case you personally didn't agree with? As a person who has studied law surely you don't really condone that type of situation? Also thanks for going into more details about your course, it's a very different system over there to the one we have here in Ireland certainly.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

The point is that courts make weird and non-sensical decisions all the time. It doesn't mean I don't have faith in the judicial system, it means I won't be using court cases as a point of scientific reference any time soon.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

So let me get this straight..you have faith in the judicial system even though you concede that they often make weird deicisions. Then just to finish off your argument you are saying that even though you do have faith in the justice system you won't be taking any scientific evidence that is presented in court by qualified and experienced medical professionals, scientific researchers or experts in their field seriously but just on the occasions when they present or elaborate on their knowledge on a subject in a court room. So does that mean that if you read say a gastroenterologists report that suggested there was a link between vaccines and autism at home, you might consider it, but if you reread the same scientific report in say The Lancet but read it while sitting in a court room then you would have to completely disregard it on the secong occasion because of the connection with a courtroom? If this logic works for you then fair enough but I just hope I never have to use the Canadian Judicial system though, I'd be pretty scared. So I suppose if that's what's been taught about law in Canadian Universities then I can understand why you see things the way you do. Thanks for clarifying that its been very insighful.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

I can have faith in the justice system without believing it has any implications regarding science.

I gave the example of the scientists/manslaughter to demonstrate that just because a court made a ruling doesn't mean it translates into being scientifically relevant. You would think it was ridiculous if I said "An Italian court's conviction of manslaughter proves that people should be able to predict earthquakes without fail." It proves nothing, it was simply the result of a court case.

You would be really hard pressed to find anyone in the field of science who considered a court case to be a credible source. That is not specific to me or my country, it's common sense.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Hi Aime, you're just not making much sense really anymore, but as I said already if you understand what you mean and can get by that way then that's the main thing. Don't scientific facts remain valid no matter where they are shared in most peoples opinion? I would have thought that was common sense? I mean if an expert speaks in a court or at a conference about what he has learned from scientific research and remits exactly the same scientific evidence on both occasions then its still just as valid in most peoples opinion (not yours though I understand). As I said why you so vehemently believe that this isn't the case seems a bit of a puzzle to me but if it works for you then good luck with it. I mean isn't forensic scientific evidence crucial now in many court cases, are you saying that most people don't take that seriously either in a court?


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

It has nothing to do with the scientific facts presented in court, an expert testimony isn't guaranteed to make any difference in how a case actually plays out. I'm not referring to that at all. What I'm referring to is the actual ruling, which a judge or jury comes to based on evidence presented. That is based on a whole array of things, not just expert testimony. Court rulings are subject to all kids of bias, which is why they shouldn't be accepted as a reliable source when it comes to making scientific conclusions. Given the fact that there is no solid evidence linking vaccines and autism, it seems pretty obvious that the ruling was not made on the basis of scientific evidence. It happens. Civil court is based on a balance of probabilities, not on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge thought that it was probable that a vaccine caused autism, then so be it. A judge is not a scientist.

As for an expert's opinion: I appreciate that everyone has done different research and I think an expert testimony in court holds as much weight as someone speaking at a conference. I'm not trying to say it's invalid. But one person's opinion, expert or not, doesn't prove anything. The requirements for "proof" are really exceptionally high.

This appears to be going in circles now. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly, but I think I'm officially out of patience for this conversation. We'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

Yes indeed Aime we are certainly going around in circles. You will note earlier that even a vaccine manufacturers themselves has listed autism as one of the possible adverse reactions to one of their vaccines albeit not the only adverse effect being noted by any stretch of the imagination. Once again this was from the product insert...

Also I have a print off in front of me now which is written by a company known as Sanofi Pasteur Inc and The Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases of Osaka University in Japan. It contains product information, research and findings in relation to 'Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed Tripedia,' It is a very interesting read but for the purpose of this reply I refer to Page 11 where in relation to reported adverse effects it lists (among many others), and I quote...'13 deaths in Tripedia vaccine recipients were reported..' of those 13 deaths, 7 were attributed to SIDS. I think this definitely suggests that this issue warrrants s bit more research and it is not valid to say there is no suggested correlation between vaccines and SIDS.

Then the report also says .....'Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic rhrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal seizure, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence...'

So once again if even research done the manufacturer themselves indicates a link I do wonder if you are adequately researaching this area or if you are just reading a very small biased sample of the scientific evidence that is available. It is now globally conceded that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence out there that is pretty much being ignored by many Governments and pretty much all Vaccine Manufacturers because of their own agenda's (policies which are often rather detrimental to the health of a whole generation of vulnerable children).

Also I think it has been well discussed at this stage that many of the 'safety,' reports surrounding certain vaccines are vague, inadequate, hopelessly outdated, they don't take account of the different reactions of children who have an underlying genetic susceptibility to vaccine damage (NOT JUST AUTISM by any means). Also no proper scientific study has ever been done (due to the fact that nobody will dare fund it), on whether children who have been vaccinated or not are the healthiest overall. Perhaps that is because what would be discovered would be too detrimental to the vaccine programme.

Therefore in conclusion I understand what you are trying to say in relation to court evidence now so that leaves me to wonder whether you have ever actually researhced the overall picture because if you had I feel you would not be trying to reiterate that if it is proven in court that a child has been vaccine damaged, that for some reason we are then supposed to shrug our shoulders and say 'ah well what do they know anyway? There is still no proof so that's fine really!'

Also if a judge and jury find a link due to evidence presented (be it completely scientific or derived from a combination of factors and evidence types), then what you are saying is that there is still no scientific link. So basically what a person needs to do when they have an obviously vaccine damaged child, is to take their chances with a court because there they may have a good chance of success of getting justice and perhaps some compensation to secure their childs future well being but still the 'official,' line is there is no link.

I am sure many people could live with this scenario easier than doing nothing because some scientific report where the statistics have been juggled around to show a specific outcome disagrees with what they already know. Sounds like the best option to me.

Also in conclusion I just wanted to remind you again of the 'Kenneth Best,' Case just to reiterate my point that vaccines do not just cause autism. This child was severely brain damaged and had psychological and physical injuries. His mother discovered that it was because of the strain of Pertussis vaccine he received . She found evidecne that very clearly backed these claims up. She sued the vaccine manufacturers and won the case. However in order to claim the compensation she was asked to sign a gagging clause saying she would not publicly speak about the case again. Why do you think this was necessary? Meaning that if there was no scientific evidence to suppport her claims then why was she required to never speak about the case again? Doesn't sound like the vaccine manufacturers were all that confident to me that there was no evidence to substantiate this woman's claims?

So as you say lets agree to disagree but if you ever want to check out or read some of the scientific evidence relating to the other side of the coin, then please do let me know.


Aime F profile image

Aime F 2 years ago from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter)

I never said there was no evidence to support any claims ever made by people affected by vaccines. I was talking specifically about autism, so the Kenneth Best case is not really relevant to my argument. I'm aware that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support adverse reactions, some severe.

However, I think you need to re-evaluate your sources if you think there is substantial scientific evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism. I assure you that I've debated this more times than I can recall and I've had every argument and source thrown at me. I'm not ignorant to the evidence on the other side of the coin, I just don't think any of it is very good.

Re: 'autism' listed as an adverse reaction on the DTaP insert. Not the first time I've heard this point and I'm sure it won't be the last. People love to refer to it, but then conveniently leave out the part immediately after where it says that no causal link can be inferred from the reports. If a causal link were found it would be listed formally and not as an "adverse events REPORTED" afterthought. Self-report surveys are interesting for collecting information but there are a number of reasons you can't draw solid scientific conclusions from them.

Again, it comes down to what kind of evidence you're happy to accept. I take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt; some people give it a lot of weight. Basically, if anyone wants to convince me that vaccines cause autism, they'll have to show me a substantial number of peer-reviewed studies published in a scientific journal that have all seen significant results and come to the same conclusions. But if such a breadth of research existed, it would not be kept quiet. Unless, of course, you believe that public health organizations exist only to promote pharmaceutical companies... in which case, we're on two different planets.

The fact that there has never been a large-scale study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids has nothing to do with funding, it's about the fact that it would be unethical. In order to eliminate confounding variables and conduct a good study, they would have to randomly assign children to groups. That would be unethical as you'd be risking vaccinating children whose parents didn't want them vaccinated, or denying vaccination to children whose parents wanted them vaccinated.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 2 years ago from Ireland Author

I am glad you agree at least that there have been studies to support the fact that vaccines do cause adverse effects many being at the severe end. Also this article that you chose to begin a very long commentary on is supposed to be concentrating on the Pertussis Vaccine and the adverse effects it has caused in children. So for that reason I do think my reference to the 'Kenneth Best case,' is particularly relevant to my article. It seems though that you are trying to veer the commentary more towards discussing a link between autism and vaccines?

In relation to scientific evidence that substantiates your views what should I be reading, do you think? What are your own favourite scientific reports that you are continuously referring to when you argue about the safety of vaccines? I would love to read some more as I am always open to new evidence as science is a continuous learning curve after all. So a list of Journal articles would be great.

I have read too that there have been efforts made to conduct a study on Yamish children who are largely unvaccinated and to then compare these results using a vaccinated group. I would think it shouldn't be very difficult to find a state in America where they have introduced mandatory vacciantions for kids i.e. to enter a school they must have all their vacciantions up to date. Then you have a control group who have all been vaccinated as opposed to one that hasn't. So I do not accept that you would first have to go around vaccinating or not vaccinating groups of children to conduct such a study, i.e. that it is 'unethical,' to conduct such a vital study.

I mean it has already been conceded even by you that vaccines can and do cause serious adverse effects and yet nobody is deeply concerned that maybe this is just a tad unethical? But yet a study that could improve the health of future generations of children you feel would not correlate with the high moral consciences of the people who are profiteereing from vaccine damaged children?

You may like to believe that Pharmaceutical companies main purpose in life is to promote the happiness and well being of all its customers including our children and that profit must only be a secondary concern to them, but yet on the planet that most of us are living on the amount of products being recalled regularly because they have gotten the safety issues wrong, or people start inconveniently dying (like I have already pointed out to you i.e. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome being noted as a side effect of the Pertussis Vaccine), is a very regular occurrence. The fact that Vaccine Manufacturers have successfully lobbied (it wasn't cheap for them either I would imagine), in many countries to get Governments to indemnify them against potential litigation just does not smack of an organization that has a massive amount of confidence in their products being completely safe?

Therefore the article I hoped people would comment on is about the Pertussis Vaccine and adverse reactions to the same. I do concede that I am also very interested in the possibility of vaccines and an autism link but I am not finished studying this yet so if you could help me out and point me in the right direction on that one by referring me to your research reports then that would be a great help.


Lorraine Murphy 1 profile image

Lorraine Murphy 1 21 months ago

Im just wondering about some statements you have made in this blog, You stated your son was different when he was a baby, That's because he was born Autistic, The MMR did not cause it, you are also giving the public false and misleading information, Andrew Wakefield is a feaud and his work and study about Autism was fraudulent also and this has been proved time and time again, Whooping cough is a serious illness that can cause death in children and im just wondering what medical qualifications you have to ask parents to question vaccines they are giving to their children, You said in comments there you hoped people would comment on whooping cough when it was yourself who brought up the MMR. Autism is neurodevelopmental and symptoms become more evident at developmental stages, Are all your blogs available to read here a personal opinion including Autism, Personality disorder and vaccines or do you have a professional background in these areas? You say also you nearly died as a child from whooping cough, So questioning the pertussis vaccine is quite contradictory. Do you realise how serious pertussis is? Children can have seizures, suffer brain damage, In 2012 whooping cough affected 48,000, 16 babies died because they were too young to get the vaccine! There have also been more recent deaths because parents aren't vaccinating due to the antivax movement, The whooping cough vaccine is proven to be safe and effective, The vaccine you mention as having Autism as a side effect was discontinued years ago, Also ALL adverse reactions are listed, If a mother happened to report Autism as one of these the vaccine manufacturer is obliged to put on insert...Also there is a world of a difference between an adverse "reaction" and an adverse "event" The Tripedia vaccine insert is still quoted by the Antivax community even though its discontinued, I would advise you also to research the difference between "reaction" and "event" Im actually sorry I read this blog as it is misinformation and your sources are not credible. By the way I am a qualified professional in the field of psychiatry and and have taken countless studies on vaccines and im actually due another now in April So I do tend to know what im talking about, I would advise properly researched evidence and of course science.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 21 months ago from Ireland Author

Lorraine thanks very much for your comments. I am considering all you have said but in order to give you an informed, impartial and scientifically accurate answer could you please supply me with references to as you say...

'...and I have taken countless studies on vaccines and im actually due another now in April So I do tend to know what im talking about, I would advise properly researched evidence and of course science...'

Please supply me with the details of where I can access the science you refere to but do not provide references to. Also the supporting evidence that you are basing your many other comments on. As I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say scientific evidence is required to analyze these matters more so please supply some to back up your claims. Then be assured that when I have read all your supporting research I will be very happy to comment further at that stage. Thanks for reading too and I value all opinions especially constructive criticism. Please note too I am not a member of the so-called Anti Vax community my children received all their vaccines until adverse reactions occurred. I simply advocate choice and informing yourself so your 'countless studies on vaccines,' will be highly useful to this course of action.


lorraine murphy 21 months ago

What studies are you looking for, And I can provide them.


lorraine 21 months ago

Also if I went and reported that a vaccine made me turn green with purple spots, The vaccine manufacturers are obliged to put in on insert. Only because it has been reported, obviously the vaccine didn't do this but that's the point I'm trying to make..


lorraine 21 months ago

You say you are not Antivax, Everything in this blog is Antivax, All your research is from Antivax sources and a book. If you blog about something as important as vaccines, You should use peer reviewed scientific articles www.briandeer.com is an excellent source on Wakefields fraud. he exposed Wakefield. Also if you are doing these blogs you should have access to scientific studies, You shouldn't blog without researching a topic like vaccines thoroughly from credible sources, Il post some links on deaths from whooping cough, After that I'm done here, giving the general public misinformation about an extremely serious topic is not good.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 21 months ago from Ireland Author

Lorraine I worry that you may not be aware that are starting to waffle a bit now and seem to have diverged away totally from citing any credible scientific facts? Also once more what I asked for is i.e. You say you have been involved in numerous safety studies in a professional capacity so I would now like to see these research safety reports and also the science you spoke of in your original comment and your own credentials that you speak of. So please provide details of all the studies of vaccine safety that you say you have been involved in and then when I have had time to review 'them all,' I will come back to you in due course.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 21 months ago from Ireland Author

Sorry Lorraine but these are newspaper articles not safety reports? You must have made a mistake? I will be out of touch now for a few days but if you could send them onto me by the end of the week I will get back to you. Have a nice weekend.


thewritingowl profile image

thewritingowl 21 months ago from Ireland Author

Sorry Lorraine just one other query I didn't actually see your last comment until now. What are Brian Deer's credentials in the areas of scientific research? Also you still haven't listed what yours are? Because as far as I can ascertain from my Google search now Brian Deer is an investigative journalist. I cannot find any information about him having any qualifications or experience in the areas of science or medicine? if not then he probably just has a qualification in Journalism as I too have? Forgive me if I am mistaken and please cite his other academic qualifications in the relevant areas if I have been misinformed. Also I always strive to improve my scientific research methods so when you have supplied me with the safety reports you have been involved in and if it correlates logically with the facts then I would be very happy to write an article about same too. There is no hurry providing the info next week will suffice. All the best for now anyway.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working