Refuge wrote:The decisions that the judge made was based on the panel of doctor's decision where they said that the vaccine cause the autisic behaviours in the child with the mitochondrial disorder. So the doctor's are the ones that decided that the vaccine was the cause, doctors within the medical establishment. And it wasn't Wakefield.
We can't say what the decision or concession said because none of us have seen it. After the ruling Mr Poling and his lawyer said that the concession stated that the vaccine had caused the injury to his daughter. The federal officials (the very same people who made the ruling and wrote the concession) replied that was not what they said. They said that it they determined that it was possible that the vaccines might have exacerbated her condition. Although they also knew that countless other things could have been responsible for that exacerbation, but a vaccine court is not set up to require that the vaccine did cause an injury, or even most likely caused an injury. Simply the possibility is what is required. That is why statistically claimants receive compensation at the vaccine courts at about twice the percentage as claimants in the legal system. And that is what should be so overwhelming about the 3 recent rulings (the strongest 3 cases out of 4900 claimants) they couldn't even convince anyone of there even being a possibility (a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, a relationship between vaccination and ASD, anything) of the vaccines causing autism - their "evidence" is that weak. With the bar set as low as possible, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd still ran right under it and it didn't phase them at all.
But anyways, now the media had two different claims. On the one side Mr Poling, on the other said the federal officials. So various media would say to the Polings that the officials are saying that they did not say what you are saying they did. The Polings said that they were making the concession public for all to see (As Hannah was a minor they were the only ones who could release such information). Well game-set-and-match. What more proof do you need that there is a government conspiracy. They lied right in front of us. (Or at least that is what the anti-vaxers screamed. And why not - here was a major dispute as to what was ruled. And the one side said not only am I telling you the truth but I will prove it to by making the concession public).
But Poling never did release the concession to the public. He instead said that he was going to release the concession to the 4900 autism is caused by vaccines claimants. If he did that, I don't know. But if he did it didn't appear to help them.
Furthermore, as to the doctors telling the court that the vaccines caused her condition - well repeating that doesn't make it true. Several of those doctors (perhaps all of them) have made their opinions known. Not one of them has said that it was anymore than one possibility. Yes they did say that compensation was appropriate and that is because based on the mandate of the vaccine courts compensation is appropriate if the cause of the injury was possibly vaccine related. Fever could exacerbate Mitochondrial disorders. Vaccines can cause fever. Ergo.
Finally, associations that deal with mitochondrial disorders made up of experts who have spent their careers working on these issues have said that it was no more than one of several possible causes of the exacerbation.
Charles Mohan, CEO of the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, says he finds the government's concession in the case reasonable.
"It could have been the vaccine that exacerbated that particular underlying mitochondrial disease," Mohan said, "or in a lot of cases it's the onset of a virus, an infection, a flu, that might have the same impact."
But at the same time, says Mohan, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that vaccines themselves can cause either mitochondrial disorders or autism.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87974932
I have a tendency to put more weight behind those who have spent years or decades researching these issues than those who have spent 4 minutes. Those experts are not saying that vaccinations should be avoided in children who have mitochondrial disorders.
Yup.
To this I would add, when you discredit nonsense, it doesn't oppress anybody. Quite the opposite, actually.
It would seem that you have been discredited Timebandit.
Yet there have been law suits settled in favour of those who sought them claiming a vaccination link to their child's autism.
Your credibility is nil sineed when you work for the pharmaceuticals yourself.
If they're breeders, yes.
I don't know. We certainly knew all about it: my cousin was diagnosed in 1970 or so. I don't recall ever running into anybody who hadn't heard of autism.
Oh, I certainly agree that McCarthy has made the public more aware of autism. I just don't see that as a bad thing. And there's lots of issues that have one name (in the public mind) associated with the cause. Leonard Frank is the only anti-electroshock activist I can think of but that doesn't mean the public doesn't give a shit about the issue.
I have read this several times and I have no idea what "that" refers to.
?
I work for the Ontario government.
And lawsuits are not proof of anything; saying something is true in a legal sense is not the same thing as saying it's true in a real sense. The weakness of science in a court of law is that you can't say anything is 100% true.
Like I say to the creationists, gravity is only a theory.
And from that statement (which I was well aware of) you get "has publicly said that's okay [kids dying] if it fits with her agenda"?
I'm not defending her theory. I've clearly stated I have no opinion on these vaccines. I'm defending her against the ugly, sexist commentary.
In some cases. And perhaps she's right. There are many more shots on our vaccine schedule compared to countries with better child health, like Cuba.
I don't think this is about finding somebody to blame. I think it's about finding the cause of a devastating condition.
And do you have any reason to disbelieve her?
And she doesn't get a free pass.
No, ADHD exploded once Ritalin was available on the market.
I don't know whether vaccines alone are responsible for autism, I suspect it may be the result of many variables and that the vaccines are simply part of that. What I do know is that we have been lied to before about the safety of drugs, remember thalidomide, the U.S. did not endorse it because it was known to have caused problems and yet Canada did. Why was that?
I see many children who do not have the vitality I remember as a child, they may not be autistic but something is wrong and we need to look at the environment we are bringing them into. I think Fidel made a point about plastics and last night I heard a program about the use of formaldehyde in clothing and we know now there was lead in their toys, is it any wonder that they are having problems? Why so much medication? What about the food additives?
I appreciated your comments about hysteria Martin.
Thanks for the reference, remind. I couldn't find the "two cases" the author alludes to where there was "compensation" paid, but I did find this article of interest among her links:
[url=Court">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/court-says-vaccine-not-to_n_166... says vaccine not to blame for autism[/url]
Eh, the MMR vax are a pretty good thing. I mean, if a kid is vaccinated it is pretty darned unlikely that they will develop the nasty complications that come with these ailments later in life. I mean, rubella isn't precisely a fun time and the complications that come along from measles aren't pleasent either. But I mean, it's only rubella - it's not like, say, it can cause any real harm. Why, I doubt there is hardly a single acronym relating to complications stemming from rubella! Why, from all the medical papers I've read (despite being an arts student I've my reasons for reading them) there be hardly a single acronym. I mean, they're just plain and easy to understand and any laymen without a single ounce of medical knowledge can make perfect sense of the information. Heck, I'm looking at one right now about HPV prevalence and the various sorts that there are - but without any medical knowledge I'm drawing conclusions by going to google and searching for opinions that support mine. Isn't science great!?
Hey, look at this! I just found a website here that says that the MMR vaccine is quoted in the Letters to the Romans: 'And lo, he said to the Roman - "disbelieve any study for they are all (withouteth a doubt) corporate in nature. For studies can always be questioned by the unlearned - for the unlearned are the foundation upon which the learned prey."
And so the Roman did respond, "but why should I believe you, for you offer no proof!"
And his response was "lol stfu!"'
What I'm getting at here is that there are multiple studies from many sources (not just Pfizer's Viagara Studies Division (a subdivision of Ecocide, inc.)) that don't show much evidence towards this. While it is up to every parent to make certain decisions regarding their children, they should base it off of careful reading on their part (of multiple sources) and always what is in the best interest of the child - not their own ideological biases. The unfortunate part here is that activists like Jenny McCarthy are clinging to sources that merely corroborate their own positions without going too far beyond that - and guess what - the folk like her at sitting pretty at the very top, where they can waste their money on nonsense magic crystal cures. They have access to the media in a way that the scientific community doesn't have - that community workers and other people with an investment in this simply don't have. The average John and Jane Doe, breeders or not, can't stand scientific conversation and often draw the wrong conclusions from medical reportage (which is always dumbed down, and still too much). I often struggle with medical information and, I mean, I live with a pretty serious medical professional in the house (and my sibling is currently working to go down that path, too). Lots of family friends are doctors and I often times can chime in the odd time, but you just have to sit back, listen, and then do your own damn research and hope that you have an inkling of what was just said (unless you're an actual medical professional and not just an internet loud mouth HAI GUYZ!)
Hey, I found Shakespearian support for the anti-vaccine crowd:
Case closed.
A scientist was on the news last evening, CTV edmonton, talking about proving indefinitely that a created substance is causing cancer or something else. He stated there was absolutely no way to do so, in most cases, and thats what corporations rely upon. He feels the system should be changed to our not having to prove anything causes harm, it should be up to those creating it, to prove it does no harm.
Unionist one of the court cases was cited above, as such I do not know how you missed it.
Jenny's message "resonates" for the same reason any slick highly-promoted snake-oil vendor's message resonates: a combination of desperate customers and crackpot callous charming marketers. It's the same reason creationists "resonate". It's the same reason those who offer life after death "resonate". It's particularly horrendous when it comes from the U.S. mass media hype machine. And they will re-victimize victims without batting an eye.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's exactly the problem. She would cause less harm and suffering if she told them to go pray to God for recovery. Instead, she warns about vaccines!
And half this thread is about Timebandit calling her a bimbo! I can imagine Thabo Mbeki's minister of health - the one that said AIDS had nothing to do with HIV - being insulted by someone for being black and a woman, and then all the discussion being about that. What a farce.
Oh, by the way, remind says compensation has been paid for lawsuits (though I'd still like to see the reference). Obviously, if these exist, they were out-of-court settlements, because the only court decisions I've found have turfed this nonsense. But if some Big Pharmas are paying bucks to avoid long court battles, then maybe Jenny, Oprah and their true believers are in this for the cash? Money isn't everything, but it sure helps...
Once again, it is parents who are speaking out about this based on their direct experience of the changes in their children following vaccinations, Jenny McCarthy and her child's autism would not be news at all if it didn't resonate with other parents of children with autism.
It doesn't surprise me that there is such hostility to questioning, after all things have changed and we are no longer a uniform herd of sheeple, some of us are no longer willing to be sheared.
That is the Hannah Poling case (despite being a minor, her name is not protected as her parents did a media blitz after the ruling and it has since appeared in hundreds of newspapers and journals). Oddly enough despite the ruling in her favor, earlier this year the 3 cases - representing the 3 most compelling cases (out of thousands) that the "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy could muster lost badly. I encourage people to read the rulings. So what gives? Surely the Poling case was brought up in each case. The bar that claimants have to get over is much lower than a normal court case. But in not one of those 3 cases did judges feel that the Poling example was enough evidence? How can that be? For the simple reason that Poling does not, nor has she ever had autism or ASD. She has a regressive encephalopathy (caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit) which may have been triggered by vaccinations (but just as easily could have been triggered by the fevers that occured with her frequent ear infections, and was bound to have been triggered by a fever at some point in time). Are some of the features of encephalopathy consistent with some features of ASD? Yes, but many conditions have features consistent with ASD such as Rett's syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, fragile X syndrome, Down's syndrome and so on.
Lots of people have been calling for that for years. It is especially needed in the alternative medicine fields where they not only do have to show that their products achieve the claimed benefits, but also do not have to show evidence that they are safe.
Oh yes, like they need the money! :rolleyes:
Seems like the purveyors of vaccines are all about personally trashing those questioning them.
See the above quoted snippet by refuge, unionist it is hard to see how you could have missed it. Oh wait I will just repost it.
"After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.
The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.
The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.
The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.
Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."
The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).
Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."
Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.
In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.
"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."
Full Article
And of course it seems some want to overlook the KNOWN damage heavy metals do to our brain, and what we know about mercury poisoning, and believe that it does no harm in vaccines, even though we are supposed to stay away from eating too much fish because of the mercury content. And we are also supposed to overlook the fact that thirmerosol was removed from contact lense solution because of the harm it does us, and accept that it is okay in vaccines and does us no harm either.
Meanwhile out of the 20 autistics that I worked with for 2 years, none had showed symptoms when toddlers until after a round of vaccinations was given to them, and indeed fully 3/4's of them had traceable First Nations heritage. One could look through their childhood pictures and see just when the damaged change occured from their appearances in the pictures.
So when there is indication that mitochondrial differences increases the chance of getting Autism from vaccinations, one has to wonder why more are not looking at it seriously for implications, and indeed pushing for the production of safe vaccinations for all peoples.
Certainly McCarthy has an advantage in terms of visibility and exposure, in the same way that Tom Cruise will have many, many more opportunities to tell millions of people about his spiritual beliefs than you or I will ever have. Not because his nutjob message "resonates", but because he's a big Hollywood celebrity, and I'm not. Sadly, some boring, nerdy team of scientists is similarly unlikely to get any microphone time to rebut McCarthy.
And anyway, with what could they rebut? All the scientists have going for them is fancy book learnin'. Measurable variables, established methodology, and robust peer review are all nice things, I guess (if you're a nerd), but how can they compare with the special, almost magical ability that Moms everywhere have to just look into their bay-bees eyes and immediately know exactly how the chemical cascade in their central nervous systems is reacting to a component of a vaccine?? If anything, I think the scientists must be jealous, because their so-called "studies" take years and years and they have to write a big long essay about it when they're done, whereas Dr. Mom just knows.
There's a science forum on this board. Is there a need for an anti-science forum?
The misogyny in this last post is palpable. "...how can they compare with the special, almost magical ability that Moms everywhere have to just look into their bay-bees eyes and immediately know exactly how the chemical cascade in their central nervous systems is reacting to a component of a vaccine?"
It says a lot about the challenge caring parents are up against.
Yes Snert, some Mothers do have a magic ability to know their children have changed. LOL
Those same mothers are talking to other mothers and they are supporting eachother, they know they have been lied to and that the lies haven't stopped nor the bullying, contempt and other strategies to shut them up. So rant on, your bullying only proves the point.
Ya, I know, I clicked away in disgust!
As I stated, above, we know what heavy metals do to our brains and bodies, and we know what thimerosol does to our body functions, but yet we are supposed to believe neither plays a bad role in the vaccine used on babies.
A class mate beside me had to get a vaccination shot, it was not even five minutes later that he became very ill, the teacher brought him back to the nurse. A few minutes later an ambulance took him to the hospital. Mind you a few days later he was back in school. But when a vaccine can cause such reaction, what else can it do?
What I find telling is when a doctoer or nurse asks you to hang around for fifteen minutes after a shot, to make sure there are no reactions. Gives real convidence in the test procedure these vaccines go through.
And to know the underlying neurochemical cause of the change, evidently.
Sorry, but these sorts of magicks are most often described in terms of "mothers" or in terms of "women's intuition". I'm not the one gendering it. I just don't trust people's hunches or gut feelings over science in cases like this. If you need to turn that into "misogyny", have at it. I'm not exactly shocked.
Ya! Screw all those studies! Put your money on Jenny McCarthy's intuition! Saying she's not a scientist is like saying that Dr. Laura isn't a doctor! If anything, Hollywood celebrities are better than scientists or doctors!
Yep, snert, here you are again denying that we know what havoc heavy metals and thimerosol play on our adult bodies, and fostering a notion that babies would not be more imapcted than our adult selves.
No they didn't.
Baloney. The case in question was not one of the test cases because the child does not have autism or ASD.
Appropriate yes. However, the child does not have have autism or ASD/
Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."
No one disputes this.
Interesting Zimmerman testified for the government saying that the girl should be compensated for her injury which may have been caused by the vaccinations, but also that she did not have autism/ASD. She met three of the many criteria for ASD. So do people suffering from many ASD conditions.
No it did not result in an ASD diagnosis. It resulted in a diagnosis of a regressive encephalopathy.
"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."
Two different types of mercury. One methyl and one ethyl. If you don't think that there is a difference switch from drinking ethyl alcohol to methyl alcohol. 10 ml can leave you blind. About 100 ml is generally fatal.
Even still many children used to get much higher doses of mercury 50 years ago when it was prominent in tons of products like baby powders - so if it was the cause of autism then the rate should have been way higher back then. Plus, thimerosal has been removed from almost all childhood vaccinations and studies are still showing a increase in autism cases years later. In fact the author of the article you posted - David Kirby - said a couple years ago that if autism rates in California didn't start to drop by '06 (I think that was the year he said) then his claims would proven false (but of course he changed his mind when the results showed that autism rates were still going up. Why get off the gravy train that is making him a pretty penny when your claims are proven false, especially when your followers care just as little for evidence).
That is the age that autism presents in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
1. Those who specialize in mitochondrial disorders do not appear to support Kirby's claims on this matter. 2. Who says that these things have not been looked into by experts? 3. Vaccines are safe.