Vaccinations; recent developments

[kEhYo77]

A groundbreaking new drug safety study published in the open access journal PLoS and titled, "Adverse Drug Reactions of Spontaneous Reports in Shanghai Pediatric Population," has revealed for the first that that 42.5% of all reported adverse drug reactions occurring in 2009 in a Chinese pediatric population (Shanghai, pop of 17 mil) were caused by vaccines, with reactions as severe as anaphylaxis and death.


42% of Drug Reactions Are Vaccine Related, Groundbreaking Chinese Study Finds

[SeaMonkey]

When considering any vaccination or any prescription medication
study the literature diligently and read all of the 'small print.'  The
hazards and warnings are well documented, even in the 'official'
information sheets/brochures.

The recently vaccinated are contagious.

[sarkeizen]

A groundbreaking new drug safety study published in the open access journal PLoS and titled, "Adverse Drug Reactions of Spontaneous Reports in Shanghai Pediatric Population," has revealed for the first that that 42.5% of all reported adverse drug reactions occurring in 2009 in a Chinese pediatric population (Shanghai, pop of 17 mil) were caused by vaccines, with reactions as severe as anaphylaxis and death.

Did you read the paper?  Nope.  It's interesting that people who claim to be interested in truth hate the idea of actually reading the papers involved.   SeaMonkey often comes here and claims that it's ok to expose people to propaganda because "people are capable of doing their own research" but it seems pretty clear that whatever subset of people here who are capable the vast majority actively avoid it.  So she's wrong about what happens here and probably wrong in general.

If you're interested in the risks of vaccines then what you want is INCIDENCE data not PROPORTIONALITY data.  You want to know how likely it is that someone will die of a vaccine and proportional data doesn't say much about that.  However if you wanted to figure out the maximal values you could do an analysis like this:

There were 3945 reports of them only 0.34% involved and ~0.001% of the cases of death/anaphylaxis were suspected to be caused by vaccines.

Since anaphylaxis happens under four hours (and in most cases is happens in minutes) and the one case of death was considered to be immediate.  It's unlikely there's much room for that number to be larger.

Assuming your population of 17 Million is correct and the age demographic breakdown of Shanghai is similar to that of China overall (14%) then the pediatric population of Shanghai is probably around 2380000.  Hence your maximal likelihood of anaphylaxis or death in getting vaccinated (in Shanghai) is no more than 5 in 2380000 ~ 1 in 476000.

In other words including every other accidental, deliberate and co-morbid cause.  Your risk in getting vaccinated is exceptionally low.  About the same as driving from LA to San Diego and back.

[SeaMonkey]

...
In other words including every other accidental, deliberate and co-morbid cause.  Your risk in getting vaccinated is exceptionally low.  About the same as driving from LA to San Diego and back.

In Sarkey's world of cooked 'statistics' that is how
the thinking (using the word loosely) goes!

Absolutely no regard for long term ill effects which
may occur years down the road.  Truth takes into
account all eventualities and all causes.

The more Sarkey exposits, the deeper he reveals the
depth of his mind controlled conditioning to be.  The
conditioning has produced an inability to see simple
Truths.  Prejudice and bias in abundance with every
word put to post.

[sarkeizen]

In Sarkey's world of cooked 'statistics'

Nothing "cooked" about it I showed exactly how the calculation was reached.  If you had an issue you could easily point out where the mistake is and how the calculation should be done.  But sadly in the SeaMonkey world of knowing nothing about math - you can't.  So this is really you WISHING you could find an error more than pointing one out. 

Absolutely no regard for long term ill effects

I have compete regard for long term effects but you would have to show me equally strong research illustrating them.  However you can't.   You can't even seem to dig up research that you would label "strong" in public. 

So again, based on the evidence at hand.  This is just you talking about monsters under your bed.