Doctors brace for a new wave of vaccine hysteria

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:
What more proof do you need that there is a government conspiracy. 

I never said there was a conspiracy just a whole bunch of people who grew up believing in vaccines and how wonderful they are and so entrenched in the medical paradigm that it is hard for them to see outside of it.  My notion is that these people think that they are doing right.  Kinda like people who grow GMO foods.  Not bad people, not a conspiracy but a lot of people who want to believe that they are doing right without willing to look at the alternative that they may in fact be causing harm.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

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. 

  Read the article again, it clearly states that it is reporting based on a copy of the concession that it obtained.  The quotes and summeries in the article are taken directly from the concession.

Trevormkidd wrote:
The federal officials (the very same people who made the ruling and wrote the concession) replied that was not what they said.

And we know that federal officials always tell the truth.


Trevormkidd wrote:
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.

And that is all that I am asking that they look at the possibility that the vaccine had to do with the development of autism so that they can try and reduce the harm or full impact of autism on families.

Trevormkidd wrote:
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.

I am not talking about the 2 of the 3 "strongest" cases, these cases may indeed have had what I will call "true" autism.  This case was one of the three in the federal court (if you look at publishing dates for details the first report of the cases being cleared in early February the second report of one of the three - this one - being conceded is at the end of February).  I want to look at all the cases that may not be as strong but may be cases where the vaccine (or some other agrivating factor) is what may have triggered autism behaviour in children who would not display this behaviour or wouldn't display as severe autisic behaviour without the trigger.  Children with autism essentially stop development at around the age of two.  Behaviour therapies generally try to raise functioning level to that of an average four year old because their development stops at around the age of 18 months to two years for mid functioning children and they have to be pushed to go anywhere beyond that.  If we could find the triggers that happen at around the age of two that causes children that do not have "true" autism to start displaying the symptoms of autism (that at this point become autism and result in a lifetime of struggle just like "true" autism) we could lessen the impact or avoid the impact of autism altogether.

Anyone involved in scientific studies knows that there is never a study which can say this causes this.  Ever.  It says this is corelated with this.  Period.  If the three (the mitochondrial disorder, the shot and the autism) are corelated it needs to be looked at.  The doctors did concede that there is a possibility that the vaccine caused this.  Why not explore this?

Trevormkidd wrote:
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.

Read the article again.  It clearly states that it is reporting on a copy of the concession that it optained.  According to that it was released.

Trevormkidd wrote:
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 c.  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.

Exactly.  Is it the fever that causes the autisic behaviours?  Look at kids with mitochondrial disorders and see if it also happens with children who fevers but not at the same time as the shot.  If it does that is a piece of information that is extremely valuable, doctors will know that avoiding fevers in children with mitochondrial disorders is very important as many have physical problems but not brain issues (as with Mt disease in the case) so they know to watch the temperature of children to avoid them developing autisic symptoms and creating huge life long problems.  This could also include either forgoing the vaccine until a later date when the child has more cognitive development or special treatment of children such as hospital stays to monitor for possible fevers after the shot is given.

For clarity sake - the doctors said (the article gave a direct quote from the concession report) that the vaccine aggrevated her already existing mitocondrial condition which predisposded her to many issues including disease of the brain which show as autisic behaviours (enough to be classified as autism).  Any time I say or said cause it is just a shorter version of the preceding sentence that I don't want to have to repeat every time I am writing a sentence with the word cause in it.

Trevormkidd wrote:
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. 

Agreed, all possible aggrivating factors should be looked at to try and avoid this very debilitating life long condition.

Trevormkidd wrote:
Yes, that is still higher than the general population, but it would be expected that mitochondrial disorders which can affect any part of the body including the brain, would be more common in a population with neurological condition, it doesn't doesn't provide any proof that children who have mitochondrial disorders are more likely to develop ASD because of vaccinations. Nor do experts or associations like the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation feel that there is a connection, or recommend against vaccinations (the opposite in fact). What would be required is a study looking at vaccinated vs unvaccinated children who have mitochondrial disorders and are diagnosed with ASD. Until such evidence is presented there is no basis for such a claim.

Yes I mispoke, thankyou I should have said that the rate of the 4900 could be as high as 10-20% based on the studies quoted in the article.

I agree.  There is more research that needs to be done to see why Mitochondrial disorders are so common amongst children with Autism.  Is some autism a form of mitochondrial disease - because right now the autism cause is unknown.  If it can be found to be mitochondrial disease, or mitochondrial disease in some cases there can be a huge advancement in screening, lessening the severity or onset of autism through therapies prior to onset, or reducing harmful triggers that again may lessen the harm or avoid the autisic behaviours altogether.  It may include delaying or not giving the vaccine, it may not but there are enough questions and they should be asked.



Long thread - continue in a new one if you'd like. :)


Topic locked