Seizure from MMR is due to high fevers, which mumps and measles both have as main symptoms. Given that 90% of people exposed to measles wind up getting it, the complication rate from the MMR diseases is going to be far, far higher than that of the vaccine.
Exactly the point the doctors used (without the statistics). Sure, it could have been coincidence but why say there was no chance it was a side effect? In fact, since her symptoms are a known side effect it is more likely it was not just a coincidence, not so?
As another person pointed out, "adverse events in the PDR or on product packaging are simply a list of all reported adverse events, with little data to demonstrate causality."[1] It is not implausible that the same symptom occurred in another person the vaccine was tested on while being entirely unrelated to the vaccine. If you throw away statistics - say that while it could be correlation it is much more likely to be causation - you replace science with superstition.
>As another person pointed out, "adverse events in the PDR or on product packaging are simply a list of all reported adverse events, with little data to demonstrate causality."
Which country is this in?
I don't really buy that the pharma corps would print a huge list of negative side-effects without any causality demonstrated unless of course it's to hide the known side-effects by making it all appear absurd ...?
Is it encouraging to know that the reported negative side-effects weren't even investigated enough to establish if they were likely to be caused by the drugs taken? My instinct is that this is a very bad thing.
If this is true they're basically saying we get lots of reports from patients who've taken this and get side-effects that they report and that medical professionals then collate and report to us but we can't be bothered to look and see if there's any credence to those reports.
> I don't really buy that the pharma corps would print a huge list of negative side-effects without any causality demonstrated unless of course it's to hide the known side-effects by making it all appear absurd ...?
I guess I imagine that as in my country the pharmas managed to get a special extension to patent terms just for themselves and no other industry that they have enough sway with government to push it so they at least only publish proven side-effects.
Why would gov make this a requirement, that's part of my question?
This sounds like if someone gets run over wearing support stockings the support stockings have a document with them saying "may cause you to be hit by a car". This is strictly true but not helpful and the causal connection is decidedly tenuous.
A one-in-a-million coincidence happens 7,000 times in the world's population. There will always be anecdotes, correlation doesn't prove causation.