A Child's Severe Reaction to a Vaccine

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
A Child's Severe Reaction to a Vaccine
24
Thu, 08-07-2003 - 11:42am
A Child's Severe Reaction to a Vaccine Alters Life

"Our baby has a fever and is listless. He was fine today," I said. "The doctor said he was perfectly healthy at his well-baby appointment this afternoon."

"Did he get his vaccines?"

"Yes."

"It's probably the shots -- fevers are typical after the DPT."

"But he isn't waking up."

Her voice changed. "Get to the emergency room -- I'll tell them you are on your way."

******************************************************************************************

Just another coincidence?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10020-2003Jul31.html

Christine



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 08-07-2003 - 3:36pm
That was a truly heart-breaking story susch. The only thing I was relieved about was hearing that the gov't. didn't give her a hard time setting up funds for Porter's care. I'm curious about Ramona's methods of care. Do you know anything about that?
Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-08-2003 - 12:50am
Who has EVER suggested that all vaccine reactions were just coincidental? HELLO - we *know* that DTaP can result in seizures.....1 in 14,000 doses. This child's reaction was very unfortunate just as the baby I saw a few years ago with seizures, apnea, cyanosis, etc while infected with pertussis was just as unfortunate. Are you suggesting that this child's reaction trumps the cases of severe VPD complication?

Eve

ps - Miki - were you referring to the Ketogenic diet? That's a real mainstream approach to particularly refractory seizure disorders. It really is as terrible as it sounds but there are quite a few success stories for some who are able to stick with it. It's generally reserved for the worst-of-the-worst epileptics.

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 08-08-2003 - 1:35pm
Eve- no I don't think it was that- wasn't the ketogenic diet tried earlier in the piece? It was the last part where Porter was placed in care w/a woman named Ramona who had cared for children w/autism & had gret aluck w/some. But it sounded more like a sort of behavior mod modality- no mention of diets- not much detail at all. That's why I was curious.
Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-08-2003 - 6:11pm
Ah - sorry, I misunderstood. I have no idea what that treatment would have entailed - it certainly was a bit vague...

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 4:48pm
"HELLO -" one major difference between the two (that you seem to be casting aside) is that when a child has severe reactions from an illness, it is acknowledged by the medical community as such. BUT when a child has a severe reaction from a vaccine, the parents are sometimes told by the medicals that it is just coincidental, in efforts to conceal the truth! (I cut and pasted the "hello" so really its not mine own snotty demeanor I am using but that of which I am borrowing! lol) marnie (the nice one) feels right to be back at cha Eve
Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:03am
Truth? Whose truth would that be, Marnie? Yours? A post to another board blamed a ruptured eardrum on the hepatitis B vaccination. No, I don't believe that for a second - so that makes me a doctor who is "concealing the truth"? No suprises there - when in doubt, just blame it on some conspiracy to hide the truth.

>>"I cut and pasted the "hello" so really its not mine own snotty demeanor I am using but that of which I am borrowing!"<<

I don't discern any difference in your demeanor - borrowed or not.

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:57pm
Are you suggesting the medical community has never passed off a child's severe reaction or death from a vaccine as something else other than from the vaccine itself, when the truth is that it was indeed the vaccine that did harm a child? Come on Eve, you're nieve if you really believe that conspiracy to conceal truth does not exist in medical circumstances. Here are just a few accounts out of the ocean of truth.....(and No, not my truth Eve, the truths of countless sickened parents and upstanding medical personals of children injured and killed by vaccines.)..........

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/nicky.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/terry.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/anna.htm

http://www.909shot.com/Kids/richie.htm

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/August2002/Laura'sStory2.htm

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/February2002/Sophie'sStory.htm

I wish I could find this one site I came across months ago that showed a large list of testimonials of parents who's doctors' insisted sids and such in their childrens' deaths and injuries from vaccines (if any one knows of this site, I'd still like to see it- thanks). When a child dies following a vaccine shot and the doctor claims sids or some bs, if it isn't concealment of truth then it is most definatly a doctor's arrogance and ignorance that diables him/her from putting two and two together. As is, proven by the following.........

"For almost a decade, a federal claims court has been drawing a significant association between mysterious child deaths and a controversial vaccine in cases previously attributed by medical examiners, hospitals and doctors to SIDS, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

The computer records from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, obtained by Gannett News Service using the Freedom of Information Act as part of a four-month study of federal immunization policy, reveal:

Of 253 infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program, 224, or 86 percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them.

· Of 771 total claims filed by parents from 1990 through mid-1998, 660, or 86 percent, contained assertions that DTP was the cause of death. And 43 percent were classified by medical authorities at time of death as SIDS cases.

A second federal database tends to draw a similar connection. This one, for the 1990s from the Food and Drug Administration, contains 460 reports of children who died within three days of receiving shots containing DTP. Of those 460 reports, 266 -- or 58 percent -- listed SIDS as a ``reaction.''

actually the entire site is pretty interesting.....

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/December2001/FedClaimsCourtVax&SIDS.htm

>>I don't discern any difference in your demeanor - borrowed or not. <<

And btw, the "HELLO -" remark was cut and borrowed out of YOUR post Eve. Lighten up, thats why I inserted "lol" marnie

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 6:37pm
>>"Are you suggesting the medical community has never passed off a child's severe reaction or death from a vaccine as something else other than from the vaccine itself, when the truth is that it was indeed the vaccine that did harm a child?"<<

I see multiple issues in this question - (1) are there reactions that could be due to a vaccine that are misdiagnosed as something else? Probably. (2) are there SERIOUS reactions (ie deaths) due to vaccines that are misdiagnosed as something else - possible but likely extraordinarily rare imo; and (3) are there vaccine reactions that are DELIBERATELY misdiagnosed by a doctor who knows with certainty that a reaction IS due to a vaccine but chooses instead to call it something else? This is the issue that I can't take seriously. My answer to this question is, imo, no.

>>"Come on Eve, you're nieve if you really believe that conspiracy to conceal truth does not exist in medical circumstances"<<

Come on Marnie - I'm just not a paranoid type of person and I do not beleive in the conspiracy theories.

>>"Here are just a few accounts out of the ocean of truth.....(and No, not my truth Eve, the truths of countless sickened parents and upstanding medical personals of children injured and killed by vaccines"<<

These are all anecdotes! What "TRUTHS" are there? The parent's truth. Hardly equitable to consider their stories the whole "truth" when there is no objective data offered and consider what the doctors diagnosed to be "NOT THE TRUTH". Have you verified these stories yourself Marnie? Can you, with any degree of certainty, assure us that there is no recall bias in these stories? Parents believe what they want to believe - now THAT'S the truth - and it makes for poor "evidence" that there is some horrible conspiracy going on amongst doctors in this country.

These articles might interest you:

Am J Prev Med. 2002 Apr;22(3):170-6.

Pediatric deaths reported after vaccination: the utility of information obtained from parents.

Silvers LE, Varricchio FE, Ellenberg SS, Krueger CL, Wise RP, Salive ME.

"CONCLUSIONS: Conducting parental and HCP follow-up for pediatric deaths reported to VAERS was resource intensive. In some instances, parents were more likely than HCPs to provide information regarding some important variables about the nature of the death. None of the additional information obtained from parents, however, provided a signal or confirmation of a causal link between the vaccine and death."

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309088860?OpenDOcument

"SIDS Not Linked to Number and Variety of Childhood Vaccines"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/hepb/q&a.htm#10

"Does the scientific evidence support a causal link between hepatitis B vaccine and infant deaths?

No. The National Center for Health Statistics, the primary Federal organization responsible for the collection, analysis, and report of health statistics, shows a consistent decline in new born deaths (infants from birth to 30 days of age) since 1935. Much of this decline is due to great improvements in sanitation, health care, and infectious disease control that have taken place during this time. Since 1991, infants have been receiving hepatitis B vaccine on a routine basis starting as early as the first day of life. Examination of newborn deaths during this time does not reveal any increase in reports, but continues to show a steady decrease in numbers of newborn deaths (Kiely, 1998). In a review of the 1991-1994 reports to VAERS, there were no unusual reports believed to be causally related to hepatitis b vaccine that occurred in infants given the vaccine (Niu et al., 1996).

Some persons have questioned whether Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) deaths could be related to vaccines. Several studies have looked at an association between SIDS and vaccines. The Institute of Medicine reviewed these studies and concluded that there was no evidence to prove a relationship existed between DTP and SIDS (IOM,1991). Almost all infants are vaccinated during the first year of life. Therefore, any infant with a medical illness or who dies is likely to have been vaccinated earlier in life. Since vaccinations are usually administered at ages 2 months, 4 months and 6 months, a statistically measurable chance of any event, death or otherwise, can occur within 24 hours of vaccinations by coincidence alone (AAP, 1995). Medical scientists have no convincing evidence or proof that there is a connection between SIDS and vaccines. In fact, deaths from SIDS have been decreasing in the past few years (Willinger et al., 1998). If SIDS were some how related to hepatitis B vaccines we would expect to see an increase in SIDS deaths since 1991 after hepatitis B vaccine was recommended for all infants. A few years ago some people had questioned whether the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (DPT) vaccine was somehow related to SIDS deaths. In one study, scientists examined data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Cooperative Epidemiological Study. The results confirmed earlier preliminary findings that DTP immunization was not a key factor in the occurrence of SIDS (Hoffman et a., 1987). In another analysis of the question looking at VAERS data scientists determined how many cases of SIDS would be expected to occur around the time a DPT vaccine is given based on chance alone. Based on birth and immunization rates, and the incidence of SIDS, scientists expected approximately 34 cases of SIDS to occur within 24 hours of receipt of DPT vaccine based purely on chance. Therefore 34 cases of SIDS would be expected to be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System unrelated to the vaccine but occurring around the time DPT vaccine was given. The average number of observed reports of all deaths, not just SIDS, within 24 hours of DTP reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System was 22 reports for the year the analysis took place (AAP, 1992). Today more is understood about the cause of SIDS. Recent evidence shows that babies who are positioned on their stomach have a greater risk of SIDS. Scientists believe that this sleeping position may interfere with the babies ability to breathe properly resulting in the increased risk of SIDS death (AAP, 1992)."

>>"the "HELLO -" remark was cut and borrowed out of YOUR post Eve."<<

And was not directed at you nor in any way "snotty". In your own words "so really its not mine own snotty demeanor I am using but that of which I am borrowing". In either event - the operative phrase was your "own snotty demeanor" - to which I agreed.

Eve


 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2003
Sun, 08-31-2003 - 8:17pm
If you would just take the time to read my entire post, as I do for you....

>>are there vaccine reactions that are DELIBERATELY misdiagnosed by a doctor who knows with certainty that a reaction IS due to a vaccine but chooses instead to call it something else? This is the issue that I can't take seriously. My answer to this question is, imo, no. <<

.... you would find the answer to this question is YES! (This isn't a matter of opinion) Obviously, this issue is taken very seriously by the federal court and the NVICP. They have revealed "Of 253 infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program, 224, or 86 percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them." Now just think about it for a minute Eve, of these vaccine related deaths, 40% of these parents were originally told that their child had died of SIDS (btw, obviously not as rare as you claim) - anyhow, how do you think these cases came to federal court in the first place? THE PARENTS KNEW IT WAS THE VACCINE because of the time frame (i'm sure) between the vaccine and the death. Now how is it that an educated, trained, professional can not come to this same conclusion? There are only two possible answers (a) arrogance and stupidity or (b) concealment of truth. If you insist it is (a) stupidity on the medical community's part, then, yeah, I'd have to agree there. But I am at the same time not nieve enough to believe the entire world is a bright and happy place where people (in what ever business) are not ever corrupt nor deceitful.

>>Come on Marnie - I'm just not a paranoid type of person and I do not beleive in the conspiracy theories<<

Like I said Eve, unless you're from a small town somewhere out in Oklahoma or somewhere, corruption and conspiracy are a part of this world. Its not a paranoia, its a fact of life.

>>These are all anecdotes! - Have you verified these stories yourself Marnie? <<

I'm sorry Eve. I am not paranoid enough to believe that these parents posted pictures of their dead children, told outragous detailed lies about their deaths all to conspire against their doctors. Besides, even if I did have any doubt on the truths of their stories, I could easily verify at least half of them by obtaining records from the U.S. court of claims in Washington D.C, whom did officially acknowledge at least 3 of the stories I posted (if you bothered to read them you'd see - and some where even published in non-fictional liturature).

>>Parents believe what they want to believe - now THAT'S the truth <<

And doctors also believe what 'they' want to believe, I know belief doesn't constitute truth. Many doctors have been and will continue to be DEAD wrong, literally. Yes, parents believe what they believe, whats your point? Aren't you also a parent Eve? If your child died 2 days after a vaccine shot, what would you believe? Besides the stories of these parents "beliefs" are not with out warrant. The US Court obviously agreed.

>>- and it makes for poor "evidence" that there is some horrible conspiracy going on amongst doctors in this country. <<

Not all Eve, just some.

>>"SIDS Not Linked to Number and Variety of Childhood Vaccines"<<

I never claimed SIDS is linked in any way to vaccines. Niether did the links I posted. Rather, what is being said is that 'vaccine related deaths' have been blamed on SIDS.

"Of 771 total claims filed by parents from 1990 through mid-1998, 660, or 86 percent, contained assertions that DTP was the cause of death. And 43 percent were classified by medical authorities at time of death as SIDS cases."

"A second federal database tends to draw a similar connection. This one, for the 1990s from the Food and Drug Administration, contains 460 reports of children who died within three days of receiving shots containing DTP. Of those 460 reports, 266 -- or 58 percent -- listed SIDS as a ``reaction.''

>>>>"the "HELLO -" remark was cut and borrowed out of YOUR post Eve."<<<<

>>And was not directed at you nor in any way "snotty".<<

Oh, so you where saying hello as in "hello, how are you Christine?" ??? If not, I can't imagine any other way hello can be said, other than with attitude. marnie

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 09-01-2003 - 2:08am
Why assume that I have not read your post when I simply disagree with your points Marnie? I could just as easily (and futilely) accuse you of doing the same - pointless.

>>".... you would find the answer to this question is YES! (This isn't a matter of opinion) Obviously, this issue is taken very seriously by the federal court and the NVICP. They have revealed "Of 253 infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program, 224, or 86 percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them." Now just think about it for a minute Eve, of these vaccine related deaths, 40% of these parents were originally told that their child had died of SIDS (btw, obviously not as rare as you claim) - anyhow, how do you think these cases came to federal court in the first place? THE PARENTS KNEW IT WAS THE VACCINE because of the time frame (i'm sure) between the vaccine and the death. Now how is it that an educated, trained, professional can not come to this same conclusion? There are only two possible answers (a) arrogance and stupidity or (b) concealment of truth. If you insist it is (a) stupidity on the medical community's part, then, yeah, I'd have to agree there. But I am at the same time not nieve enough to believe the entire world is a bright and happy place where people (in what ever business) are not ever corrupt nor deceitful."<<

You've neglected other answers which is completely understandable given the fact that you have never (presumably) investigated an infant death. When an infant dies as the result of unclear circumstances, it can certainly be initially attributed to SIDS - until proven otherwise later. (ie the doctor stating "I think it's SIDS but we need to do an autopsy first"). What information are you using? Link please. I can easily see a scenario where an infant death is attributed to SIDS until the medical examiner conducts an investigation and an infant is found to have died as the result of an anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine. In this instance, the parents can pursue an NVICP claim - no arrogance, no stupidity, no concealment involved. WHY would a medical professional risk his/her reputation and career by concealing or corrupting findings to cover up "vaccine injury"? What would be the motive for this? This makes about as much sense as a doctor "covering up" the findings of an infant's death and labelling it as SIDS instead of SBS. Why on earth would someone want to do that?

>>"Like I said Eve, unless you're from a small town somewhere out in Oklahoma or somewhere, corruption and conspiracy are a part of this world. Its not a paranoia, its a fact of life."<<

I'm not from a small town somewhere in Oklahoma. I'm originally from a rather large city in New Mexico. What difference does that make? I still don't think there's corruption and conspiracy to "maim and kill children" with vaccines. That is simply paranoia going to the next level and must be a horrible way to have to live your life.

>>"I'm sorry Eve. I am not paranoid enough to believe that these parents posted pictures of their dead children, told outragous detailed lies about their deaths all to conspire against their doctors. Besides, even if I did have any doubt on the truths of their stories, I could easily verify at least half of them by obtaining records from the U.S. court of claims in Washington D.C, whom did officially acknowledge at least 3 of the stories I posted (if you bothered to read them you'd see - and some where even published in non-fictional liturature)."<<

I never stated that they were willfully lying, Marnie - now that's paranoid. Let's sum up what you posted keeping in mind that you offered these anecdotes as evidence of "concealing" the truth ("passed off a child's severe reaction or death from a vaccine as something else other than from the vaccine itself"):

Nicky - no confirmation of the cause of this baby's death - only the mother's unconfirmed suspicions.

Terry - no indication of a "cover up" or corrupt conspiracy - the diagnosis was eventually made although it never does state how the diagnosis was made - perhaps a diagnosis of exclusion?

Anna - again, no indication of conspiracy here. The mother herself states that the doctors continued to try and identify a cause - never just "passing it off" as something else.

Richie - what part of this story indicates that the coroner was trying to "cover up" the cause of death? The coroner did conclude that the infant's death was due to DTP and notated it as such.

Laura - again, no confirmation of the diagnosis and, personally, I don't put much stock into stories involving profanity.

Sophie - an unconfirmed parent's account.

Now really, Marnie, where's the conspiracy for the conspiracy lovers?

>>"Yes, parents believe what they believe, whats your point? Aren't you also a parent Eve? If your child died 2 days after a vaccine shot, what would you believe? Besides the stories of these parents "beliefs" are not with out warrant. The US Court obviously agreed."<<

I've never denied the possibility of anaphylaxis following vaccines. Nor have I refuted that very rare reactions (ie encephalopathy, VAPP, etc) can occur. What I would not subscribe to (my child or not) are conclusions based solely on timing which parents tend to do quite often. This is part of what I mean by "parents believe what they want to believe". The US court does not confirm your accusations of conspiracy/corruption/denial and do not lend credibility to those parents who blame vaccines for outcomes that are related only by timing.

>>"Rather, what is being said is that 'vaccine related deaths' have been blamed on SIDS."<<

BTDT - there are 2 issues here. (1) Are doctors conspiring to "conceal" infant deaths by calling them SIDS? As I already stated, I don't believe so. (2) Are there some infants who are initially classified by the authorities as SIDS? Yes - but not out of some corrupt compulsion to do so. An initial assessment that might attribute a death to SIDS is likewise no admission that the SIDS diagnosis resulted from some "cover up".

>>"Oh, so you where saying hello as in "hello, how are you Christine?" ??? If not, I can't imagine any other way hello can be said, other than with attitude."<<

Of course there was an "attitude" attached to it - just as there is with most anything anyone posts to a message board. The "attitude" was not directed at anybody in particular and was not the "snotty demeanor" that you admitted to displaying freely.

Eve




 
 

Pages