August 5, 2008

AAP Decides that Three Percent of Children are Throw Aways

Today Amanda Peet appeared on on GMA to show the world how little show knows about vaccines.  More on Amanda's statements later, but for the moment I want to focus on the story that ran before her interview and the current head of the AAP, Renee Jenkins', statement on vaccine safety and the charge that vaccines play a role in autism:
"Ninty Seven plus percent of children don't have these defects, so, when you look at what the risk and the benefits to children are, and, you really weigh the risks, then the benefits far outweigh the risks that occur."
Ergo, for 3% of children, who have these "defects", the risks DO outweigh the benefits?  What are the "defects" and what is the outcome of vaccinating those with "defects"?  Who are those three percent?!

What are you doing to find out who those three percent are so you can keep from hurting them!

If you KNOW that three percent of vaccinated children will fall ill, why are you not moving hell itself to find out who those kids are?  AND WHY ARE ARE YOU OK WITH VACCINATING ALL NEWBORNS  BEFORE THEY EVEN LEAVE THE HOSPITAL KNOWING THREE PERCENT WILL BE INJURED!!!

Four years ago my son turned out to be the one in 33 kids that had such a "defect" and for him, the risks of vaccinating FAR outweighed the benefits.  If he had been unvaccinated and exposed to EVERY serious illness, I don't think his chances of death or life long disability would have been as high as three percent.

As I have mentioned, my father his little brother and their father both got polio at the height of the epidemic and my grandfather died as a result.  So my grandfather was 1 in 60,000 for loosing his life to the disease, my father and uncle were each 1 in 3000 for getting the disease (both recovered and went on to be decorated Naval Aviators), but my son in 1 in 33 for being damaged by a vaccine against such diseases.  (Note, I have been as generous as I can to polio rates, I used the highest rates of infections and death I could find, and then rounded up)

Why would any parent vaccinate their child knowing they have a 1 in 33 chance of that vaccine doing damage?!  And you can't tell them in advance if they are more likely to be part of that three percent or not!

Especially when AAP, who recommends they vaccinate anyway, treat that three percent like throw aways.  They don't try to protect them in advance, they don't treat or even acknowledge the injury once it has happened, and they teach doctors how to throw a child out of a practice if the parents won't vaccinate.

So, in effect, AAP saying to hell with those at the bottom of the bell curve.  The genetically weakest three percent.

Would it be wrong for me to suggest that Rene Jenkins is at risk for spending three percent of her afterlife in hell?

UPDATE:  Andrea Keller contacted the producer of the piece at ABC who said that they do not release unused footage so we don't get to hear the rest of what Jenkins said.

David Kirby contacted the AAP who said that the 3% she was referring to was minor reactions like fever, swelling at the injection site, etc.  If that is the case, then why did ABC use the quote in a piece about serious neurological disorders?

ABC needs to share the rest of that interview.  They have opened a can of worms and we need to know what exactly Jenkins was saying.

Another UPDATE:

I spoke with the producer of the GMA piece who interviewed Jenkins.  She reiterated that they don't release unused interviews, but she was nice enough to read me the question that was asked and Jenkins full response.

The discussion was about autism and not minor vaccine reactions.  The question was a version of 'can you rule out an association between vaccines and autism', and Jenkins answer was something to the effect of 'you can never rule out an association between anything and anything else, but we don't see an association.... but in the case of Hannah Poling...', (the interviewer had not mentioned Hannah).  And that lead into her quote, "Ninty Seven plus percent of children don't have these defects, so, when you look at what the risk and the benefits to children are, and, you really weigh the risks, then the benefits far outweigh the risks that occur."

So ABC DID use the quote correctly and in context. 

David Kirby reports:
"I was told [by AAP] that Dr. Jenkins misspoke when she referred to children with “defects.” What she was talking about is the subset of children who have adverse vaccine reactions such as localized pain and swelling, and/or fever."
Jenkins was NOT talking about minor reactions and autism was the subject Autism and Hanna Poling WAS Jenkins reference point.

If Jenkins was misspeaking then that was a pretty out there misstatement.  If someone was asked about about the percentage of people who get brain damage from boxing, how would one rationally include bloody noses in the answer?

I encouraged ABC to follow up on this and help us get a real statement from AAP (or CDC) on what they believe the percentage is for kids who are at risk serious vaccine reaction and autism.

12 comments:

loveconquersall said...

Thank you Ginger for expressing yourself so well.
I feel so disgusted about the way things are...I can always read your blogs and feel better that there is a "sane" mother out there expressing my views, when I cannot.

You are such an asset to our community. Thank you!

Ginger Taylor said...

Thanks for the encouragement love.

sdtech74 said...

First, thank you for your excellent web media. Please keep up the excellent work.

Second when I listen to the GMA video at http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5516977 I can only feel sorry for Ms. Peet.

She says go to the experts - thus the corporate stooge can step in and tell us all is well and a 3 percent failure rate for our children is acceptable because they are not destroying the lives of the remaining 97 percent.

Heck of a job!

Aasa said...

Regarding the 1 in 33 or so children being damaged by vaccines (with ASD?) as mentioned by Ginger Taylor, I would wager that the fraction or percentage of affected children is likely way higher. How can they reconcile in the States, that 1 out of 6 children are affected by neurological, developmental, and/or behavioral disorders nowadays? That's a whopping number and a terrible statistic, in my mind! (not that things are any better here in Canada,...here 1 out of 5 children supposedly have a diagnosable "mental health disorder"). Occasionally, these statistics are mentioned in the news, but the sheeple do not seem to notice, care, or even wonder why!

This is terrifyingly sad, and perplexing,

You decide... said...

Funny I was just about to post something very similar... Really - just 3%?

That's a number given to us by the group that "recommends they vaccinate anyway, treat that three percent like throw aways. They don't try to protect them in advance, they don't treat or even acknowledge the injury once it has happened, and they teach doctors how to throw a child out of a practice if the parents won't vaccinate."

So this is a number from a group that is trying very hard NOT to see any casualties. How reliable should we expect that number of 3% to really be?

~Grace

Sam's MAMA said...

Thanks for putting this in perspective for all to see, Ginger - AGAIN!!

Will the madness ever stop?!?

Hugs,
Lin

K Fuller said...

It really is as if they want everyone to play Russian Roulette. Only not on ourselves, on our helpless babies.

Ames said...

I thought the same thing...only 3%...I am sure that is a higher percentage. But even if it is 3% there is still no excuse for those children to be "throw aways". Whatever the number, my son is one of them too and I can not even remember now how many times we have been turned away at doctors offices because we do not vaccinate. Isn't that descrimination, somehow?

I have been reading your blog, Ginger, for a while now. You do such a great job with it. Keep it coming.

Thing1Thing2Mom said...

Ginger,

Last night I ran some numbers. I was curious how many births 3% of our yearly births totaled. Using the crude birth rate for the U.S. (14.18/1,000people) I found that Renee Jenkin's 3% of children with defects equals 128,104 children per year.

I then asked myself, "Wasn't the number of lives saved per year 33,000 as stated by yhe CDC." I did my research and yes...the CDC says that 33,000 lives per year are saved by vaccination.

And the AAP, the CDC, Every Child by Two, and Paul Offit keep telling us the "Obviously the benefits out way the risk." Well appently not.

Pamela Felice

Thing1Thing2Mom said...

Ginger,

Last night I ran some numbers. I was curious how many births 3% of our yearly births totaled. Using the crude birth rate for the U.S. (14.18/1,000people) I found that Renee Jenkin's 3% of children with defects equals 128,104 children per year.

I then asked myself, "Wasn't the number of lives saved per year 33,000 as stated by yhe CDC." I did my research and yes...the CDC says that 33,000 lives per year are saved by vaccination.

And the AAP, the CDC, Every Child by Two, and Paul Offit keep telling us the "Obviously the benefits out way the risk." Well appently not.

Thing1Thing2Mom said...

Ginger,

Last night I ran some numbers. I was curious how many births 3% of our yearly births totaled. Using the crude birth rate for the U.S. (14.18/1,000people) I found that Renee Jenkin's 3% of children with defects equals 128,104 children per year.

I then asked myself, "Wasn't the number of lives saved per year 33,000 as stated by yhe CDC." I did my research and yes...the CDC says that 33,000 lives per year are saved by vaccination.

And the AAP, the CDC, Every Child by Two, and Paul Offit keep telling us the "Obviously the benefits out way the risk." Well appently not.

Ginger Taylor said...

testing the comments