Idk if right forum, never really posted a topic here, but I thought this was interesting and seems science/nature related.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030657%5Fvaccines%5Fmiscarriages.html

Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit -- but the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed.

According to the CDC, nearly 50 percent of all pregnant women were vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccine during the 2009 / 2010 influenza season. Those whose physicians instructed them to get a seasonal flu shot were three times more likely to get it, while those instructed specifically to get the H1N1 shot were ten times more likely to get it. And the numbers clearly show that along with the rise in vaccinations due to the H1N1 scare came the sharp increase in miscarriages, including a slew of actual reported adverse events.

But the CDC does not seem to care about the facts, as numerous reports indicate the agency has failed to report any of this vital information to vaccine suppliers. In fact, when presented with the data for the third time, Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, actually had the audacity to claim that there were no vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women caused by the vaccine.

"This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group has given the green light to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant women," explained Eileen Dannemann, director of the National Coalition of Organized Women, presenter of the information.

"This upcoming 2010/11 flu vaccine contains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains two other viral strains -- a three-in-one shot for all people."

Overall, the number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to lie to the public about the vaccine, urging everyone, including pregnant women, to get it.

To read the report for yourself, visit: http://www.progressiveconvergence.c.../

This post was edited by StarryNight on Dec 10 2010 12:54pm

this is so disgusting. i cant beleive half of pregnant women did this in 2009. that is a scary number. vaccines are one of the most disgusting things ever invented

Anti-vaxxers. Not even worth the time refuting your BS.

Some vaccines are ok imo, but I never got the H1N1 vaccine because I believed it was a bunch of bs. And this is just one of the many articles explaining why it is.

The first link was/is still down so it can't corroborate any of the claims you've made regarding whether or not the H1N1 vaccine could have affected miscarriage rates. It isn't in the Google Cache either.

The second link broke while you were entering it, but I got the data anyway. I'm curious about where they got their information, because none of their claims would withstand scientific scrutiny since they're mentioning reports without citing them. For example, I saw them flat-out say these miscarriages were directly caused by the H1N1 vaccine. Did you know that about 12% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage already?

http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7099/32.abstract (based on the sample size of 550, the margin of error is about 4%, meaning they're 95% certain that the actual percentage of miscarriages is between 8% and 16%)

From the information you posted, I saw no reason to believe that the number of miscarriages was higher in the vaccinated group than in the population at large.

sorry, bad link due to formatting. this one should work: http://www.naturalnews.com/030657_vaccines_miscarriages.html

and as for the second link, no, i copied and pasted it from the article as it was. but here it is since that first link didn't work originally so you couldn't get to it anyways: http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/H1N1-RELATED miscarriages.htm

it was saying that the miscarriage rate increased drastically in women who were pregnant before they had the vaccine, compared to years prior to having the h1n1 vaccine (in other women).

"Simplistically, based on the results from this analysis, not vaccinating could have been up to about 187.5 times safer for the fetus than vaccinating with the 2009-A-H1N1 flu shot was."

Well, I got to that link simply by making it ".com" at the end instead of the ".c...", so I did have that information in front of me.


The problem with that second link is that there IS no analysis shown. It just says "based on results from this analysis," and does not describe what the analysis was. There are statistical tests that can be performed to determine if two different groups actually have a difference in likelihood of something happen. Were these tests performed, or is it just the opinion of people who write for ProgressiveConvergence.com? We can't know.

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/miscarriage-cases.htm
This site lists 72 anecdotal miscarriages that occurred within a week of the mother getting a flu vaccine (and then tries to attribute the miscarriage to thimerosal, which is a leap of faith in itself since a tuna sandwich has more mercury than does a flu vaccine). Just 72 women were listed as having a miscarriage that they could POSSIBLY attribute to the vaccine. And your first link claims that 50% of all pregnant women got the vaccine. For this number to fall outside of the range of the normal miscarriage rate (~12%, as I linked above), that would have to mean about 600 pregnant women got the vaccine (12% of 600 is 72). Since half of the number of all pregnant women is far, far greater than 600, it's entirely likely that the miscarriage coincidentally occurred after the vaccine was given.

My main problem with these sources are summarized here:
1) They don't cite their information as to where they got it.
2) They don't tell you how they have analyzed the information, and you're just supposed to trust that they used a legitimate, scientific method
3) A lot of their percentages and comparative numbers (e.g. "187.5 times safer") appear to be made up.
4) They leave out information that would disprove what they have to say.

If this is all they have for "research", then it's no surprise the CDC is discounting what they have to say. The scientific community as a whole requires much higher standards than what the ProgressiveConvergence.com people have set for themselves.

1 in 1.5 million / 1 in 8000 = 187.5
the statistical tests were performed, as stated previously in the pdf file and in cited papers, as noted in the footnotes.
those are only anecdotal miscarriages, it doesn't represent the actual number of miscarriages that were or weren't recorded (as it states that the CDC tried to hide the number of actual miscarriages).

as for the mercury content in the vaccine, it's equivalent to 49 mg/L, and assuming the density of water (1000 grams of water per liter of water), is equivalent to 49 micrograms of mercury per gram of water.

"This dose of .5 mL of swine flu vaccine contains 24.5 micrograms of mercury, as noted in the CSL Limited package insert. According to the EPA guidelines, in order for this amount of mercury to be safe, the individual getting the vaccine would need to weigh 539 pounds."
http://www.suite101.com/content/unsafe-mercury-levels-in-the-swine-flu-vaccine-a164989

Average amount of mercury in tuna, from the fda website, in ppm:
"TUNA (CANNED, LIGHT) 0.118"
or, 0.118 micrograms of mercury per gram of tuna
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm

assuming there's approximately 100 grams of tuna on a tuna sandwich (about half a cup), no, there is not more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the vaccine.
note i used the value for light tuna, just noticed there's also a value for other tuna that's a higher value, but even then, at .353 ppm, it's still less than in the vaccine.

recommended level of mercury:
"Currently, U.S. EPA uses a RfD of 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day as an exposure without recognized adverse effects."
or 0.1 micrograms of mercury per 1000 grams of body weight per day
http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm

hence the reason you're not supposed to eat a tuna fish sandwich every single day.

so
1) the information is cited in the footnotes of the pdf file, or from the vaers database (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)
2) there isn't really much analysis besides dividing numbers and confidence intervals. any other analysis was done on the vaers database site.
3) just showed you how it wasn't made up.
4) how is this different from other websites, including the cdc, excluding information to disprove what they say? i mean basically, the other websites and the cdc that don't include this information are basically the "disproving" information you're asking about...

This post was edited by StarryNight on Dec 11 2010 02:06am

vaccinations are not as nessessary as everyone tries to make them

some are alright, but a lot of simply pointless and damaging to the health of the host.

im not anti vaccine, but im pro vaccine safety. H1N1 vaccine has to be the classic example of a completely useless vaccine

Okay, so in that kind of tuna, it takes two sandwiches (in the .353 ppm, in 100 grams you'd have 35.3 ug of mercury, so that's 40% more than what's in the vaccine). Guess I over-estimated. Either way, how many women have reported having a miscarriage after eating a tuna sandwich or two?


That's one citation. Where are they getting other information from? In scientific publication, every statistic that's not calculated by themselves needs to be cited, and every assumption they use needs to be cited as well in order to show that they're not just pulling this information out of nowhere. They're making a lot of claims, and the footnotes are simple explanations and not citations at all.


That's exactly the problem. They just say that there should have been ~1500 instead of ~150 miscarriages reported in the VAERs database. But they didn't do any comparisons between the vaccinated group and a non-vaccinated group to show that the number of miscarriages was statistically significantly higher in the vaccinated group. If they're going to make a claim that these vaccines can be tied to miscarriages, they need to do that test.

It's still a fact that a lot of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Let's use 8%, the lower-bound within the confidence interval from that study I cited earlier. There were approximately 4.2 million babies born in 2009, which means there were 4.565 million pregnancies (4.2kk / 0.92), and 365,000 miscarriages (using the upper bound of 16%, that leaves us with 800,000 miscarriages). Given that this would have produced approximately 180,000 miscarriages in the half of the pregnant population that received the vaccination, don't you think it could have simply been a coincidence that these ~1500 miscarriages occurred after the flu vaccine was administered?


That's the difference between websites and scientific publication. With "just a website," you can make claims like ProgressiveConvergence does. With scientific publication (those pdfs are not published scientific work and, like I said earlier, don't meet the standards of scientific publication. With scientific publication, you also have to present caveats if you're aware of any possibility that your conclusions might be wrong. The CDC doesn't list them, because there simply is no published scientific work that links thimerosal with any negative side effects. In fact, the only reason mercury-based adjuvants were removed from some vaccines in the past was due to public fear, and had nothing to do with side-effects.