Age of Autism: "Why is the Media Ignoring the Bailey Banks Autism Vaccine Decision?"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

The answer? Because Big Pharma = 3 Billion $ per year + in revenue, which = influence.

Why is the Media Ignoring the Bailey Banks Autism Vaccine Decision?

February 27, 2009 Age of Autism.

Warrior Mom Alison MacNeil compiled this list of mainstream media contacts who have, so far, ignored the Bailey Banks vaccine court decision (HERE.) Perhaps you'd like to email each of them, politely of course, to ask when their stories will run informing parents that the "door" is still very much open regarding vaccines and PDD's. Let's keep demanding coverage until we're blue in.... well, you get the point, right? Feel free to add more contacts in the comments. Thanks. (PS) Anyone got any gum?

Here's the list:

NYT

[e-mail] (Andy Rosenthal- editorial board)

[e-mail] (Don McNeil - covered court case)

http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html (directory of all depts)

Reuters:

[e-mail] (health reporter)

[e-mail] (health editor, covered court case)

AP

[e-mail] (Carla, top health reporter)

[e-mail] (Lauran, covered the Feb. 12 court decision)

[e-mail] (Kevin, covered the Feb. 12 court decision)

Bloomberg:

[e-mail] (health reporter covered court case)

WSJ

[e-mail] (covers health, courts)

CNN

[e-mail]

I suggest we also try, [e-mail]

[Warpy]

1. You're never going to see anything but a few isolated decisions

in your favor because the hard science has been done and there is no link in the vast majority of ASD cases.

The only news in all this is that Wakefield faked his data and the antivax movement is now scientifically as well as morally bankrupt.

[pnwmom]

2. If one child develops autism as a result of an avoidable vaccine reaction,

that is one child too many.

That is why research must continue to be done -- to determine which children (and I agree with you, probably the vast majority) -- can safely receive vaccines.

[stopbush]

5. And if a couple of thousand kids die from measles and other diseases

because their parents refused to get them vaccinated for false fears that they'll improbably develop autism, then that's just peachy keen, right? And if those un-vaccinated kids spread these CONTAGIOUS diseases to a wider population, that's even better, correct?

[pnwmom]

6. Nope. If the research is done, parents won't be afraid that their children

might be accidentally harmed.

[uppityperson]

8. What?

[pnwmom]

10. I mean

if the vaccine database is made freely available, and parents can trust that researchers have identified the children that ARE at risk from a vaccine, that they will feel safer about getting their non-at-risk children vaccinated.

That's how I would feel anyway. As it is, I feel that they're saying: "trust us, it's safe." That's not enough, for me. I'd feel more trusting if they weren't acting so much like they have something to hide.

[uppityperson]

22. "and parents can trust that researchers have identified the children that ARE at risk from a vaccin"

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to positively ID every child that is at risk. Any research that gives a guarantee is suspicious.

Then there is the problem of at what point do you trust research, given that there is no absolute guarantee.

[pnwmom]

30. Personally, I will be better able to trust them

when they stop behaving as if they have something to hide. They should stop making phony excuses and open up the Vaccine database to qualified researchers.

[uppityperson]

125. What would it take to have you trust them? serious question.

You write "when they stop behaving as if they have something to hide" but what does that mean? What "qualified researchers" would you trust since you seem to be saying that you don't trust any who have had the information yet?

Not snarking, just trying to figure out what, or whom, you would trust.

I have been a nurse for many yrs, and a parent, and a massage therapist, so I come to this debate from several sides of the issue. I try to snark only at those who snark first also, am not snarking here at you so please don't take this that way. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

160. I know you don't snark without justification, uppityperson.

The VAERS database has been made available to only a few researchers, thus far -- and that was only after a great deal of political pressure was put on them to do so. Having you read the article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the controversy? The one in Rolling Stone a couple of years ago. He obviously isn't a scientist, but he addresses the politics involved in the vaccine controversies.

[uppityperson]

164. I haven't read that article, just bits from it here and there.

Having been in the system on several sides (provider and patient and parent, making enough money to not have to worry and being quite poor and homeless, having insurance and having no insurance) and reading what I have read, I distrust some factors of big pharmaceutical companies, and see there is no one right answer for everyone, but also believe that vaccines save a huge many more lives than they harm.

It can be difficult to trust a company, or a group, that has hidden things. Sometimes there are no guarantees, and wanting to have one can be difficult, esp when you balance off your child's life. However, I got mine the recommended vaccines as the risk for not doing so outweighed the risk of doing so, for me.

[pnwmom]

165. I got my children almost all of the recommended vaccines, too.

That's why it annoys me that some of the bullies around here call posters with questions like I have, "anti-vaxers." I'm not anti-vax. I'm just not a sheeple.

I also know that the number of mandatory vaccines in the first two years has increased since I had my first child -- from 10 to over 30! If I were a young parent today, I would be concerned about that, and wonder why we have so many more mandatory vaccines here than in western Europe, for example. Are they all equally important?

With respect to my own children, I had two specific concerns. My daughter had a terrible time with the oral polio vaccines -- with green, burning diarrhea for over a week. It was so bad I had to keep her in the crib with just diapers underneath her (not pinned on her), so that her skin could heal. So I started reading, and learned that this oral vaccine was a live vaccine. I realized that the live vaccine could pose a risk for some elderly relatives that had grown up out in the country and might not be fully vaccinated. And I read that the killed-virus vaccine wasn't being used because the live vaccine was marginally more effective (via the herd immunity theory) and was more convenient. (Didn't require a shot.) I decided I'd rather have my daughter get another shot than go through another week of burning diarrhea, but my doctor wouldn't try to get injectable vaccine for me, and I couldn't get it from the health department either. Five years later when my son came along, the injectable killed-virus vaccine WAS available, but only at the health department. Another five years later, and the injectable killed-virus vaccine -- the one I had been arguing for for years -- was finally the officially recommended vaccine.

The other vaccine I've had personal concerns about was the DTP, although not till my second child came along. He didn't develop a high fever or have constant crying for hours on end -- serious symptoms that would have automatically kept him from getting any more of the pertussis part of the vaccine. What he did have, was a 101-102 fever accompanied by long periods of screaming (but not for two solid hours in a row) for a full week. Also, every time he tried to nurse (meaning, 12 or more times a day), he'd suddenly throw his head back, screaming, and then his hands and feet would take turns curling up and shaking. I told my doctor about this and his response was that it couldn't be the vaccine, because the vaccine doesn't cause reactions like this. So it had to be some "bug" that he came down with the same day that he got the vaccine. (Right.)

Six weeks or so passed, and I told my mother how much I was dreading having my son get another DTP shot. That's when it all came out. My mother told me how much she hated them, too, and said that my sister had had one the day before she died. WHAT??? All I'd known was that she died when she was 6 months old. Over the next couple days, I learned that my sister had had the vaccine and woke up the next day screaming, then having seizures. The doctors diagnosed her with encephalitis. But when my parents got the death certificate, it said "pneumonia"; so they had always told us she had had pneumonia, even though she had been perfectly well when she went into the doctor for her well-baby check-up and her vaccines. Since the doctor never mentioned the possibility of a vaccine reaction -- possibly he didn't know that encephalitis was a rare complication of the vaccine -- my mother thought that my sister must somehow have picked up a very fast-acting pneumonia "germ" while waiting in the doctor's office to get her shot! (My new doctor explained this by saying that pertussis causes a very severe form of pneumonia.) Also, my mother remembered that one of her cousins had died after receiving a DTP shot, and another cousin had become crippled as a result. What those parents had been told was that their children had gotten part of a "bad batch" of the vaccine.

With this information, my new doctor decided not to take the risk of further pertussis boosters with any of my children. One of my nieces had already been excluded from pertussis vaccines after developing a fever over 105, and now her doctor decided to exclude her brother from the vaccines. And the father of my other nieces, himself a physician, decided that none of his children would have any pertussis vaccines.

It was years later that the "anti-vax" crowd finally succeeded in their campaign to get a safer DTP vaccine. And for that I am extremely grateful to them. I think they're a very valuable counter to the excesses of big pharma.

ON EDIT:

IN case you ever want to read the RFK article, here's a link.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

And here's a snippet from a short article summarizing RFK's work:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/OctNov2007/Kennedy.html

The episode began in June of that year, when the CDC invited 50 health officials and drug company representatives to a meeting in rural Georgia to discuss a new research study. A CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten informed the gathering that he’d analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children. He concluded that the compound could be statistically linked to a dramatic increase in autism in kids.

Remarkably, instead of calling for an immediate recall of Thimerosal nationwide and overhauling its vaccine protocols, CDC administrators spent the rest of meeting conspiring with drug makers to cover their tracks. The representatives from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck (which makes the new cervical vaccine) Aventis Pasteur, and Wyeth (maker of Premarin and Prempro, hormone replacement drugs tied to breast and endometrial cancer) were told they could continue distributing their mercury-laced stockpiles until the supplies ran out.

All data presented during the meeting was “embargoed”, meaning no one could speak to the press. Verstraeten agreed to postpone releasing his study, though it was scheduled for immediate publication. Kennedy says the public health officials also decided to transfer the medical records database to a private company, thereby blocking other researchers from gaining access to the same information that Verstraeten found so worrisome.

[uppityperson]

176. "I'm not anti-vax. I'm just not a sheeple." And thank you for the article links

it annoys me that some of the bullies around here call posters things like sheeple also.

[damntexdem]

14. How about if fudged research is debunked?

The whole scare is founded on a lie.

[crikkett]

40. /so happy I decided to skip the whole 'having children' thing. eom

[Warpy]

7. If ONE CHILD has a reaction

let's end vaccination and let HUNDREDS DIE!

That's what you're saying, you know.

Vaccination is one of the determinants in allowing our kids to grow up instead of join all those other tiny headstones that used to appear in churchyards before we got them.

[pnwmom]

11. That is totally NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we're going to vaccinate

we have an ethical obligation to do our best to keep vaccinations as safe as possible, and that means continuing research, both in developing new and improved vaccines, and in identifying children who might be at risk from particular vacccines.

[stopbush]

15. And that's exactly what IS happening, the anti-vax crowd nonwithstanding,

but your eyes are clearly blinded by and fixated on this phony vaccines-cause-autism sidebar, when the science is overwhelming that this line of research - which was initiated through the issue of FABRICATED DATA - has come up empty, and that funding for research would be best directed elsewhere. Being responsible also means knowing when to give up the ghost on hypotheses that are not proving out.

Just out of curiosity, what is your PERSONAL recommendation to parents who are considering their kid's vaccinations? Are you for all, against some or against all?

[pnwmom]

17. I haven't looked into it in years, so the first thing I'd suggest is that they

do their research.

There are so many more vaccines on the routine schedule now than when my children first started getting vaccines. And I understand that our children get a lot more shots than kids in Europe. So I'd like to know the reason for that. Are all the vaccines equally necessary?

I'd also suggest spreading the vaccines apart now, rather than doing several at once. Doctors do that for convenience, but I'd rather make more trips to the doctor's office and not put too many vaccines into my child on the same day. And that way, if a child does have a reaction to a vaccine, you'll know which one caused the reaction.

I'd like to point out that at least four good changes have been made as a result of the group you keep referring to as the "anti-vax crowd."

Number one, the newer, "split-cell" DTP vaccine is safer now than the original "whole cell" vaccine.

Number two, the polio vaccine being used now is the one with killed rather than live viruses.

I tried to obtain this vaccine for my first child, but couldn't get it anywhere. By the time my second came along, I still couldn't get it through my doctor, but I could get it at the public health department. By the time my third was born, the same killed virus vaccine that -- ten years before -- was said to be inadequate -- was now being recommended for all children. (And nothing had changed in the meantime. When I first tried to get that vaccine, polio in this country was already practically non-existent.)

Number three, mercury has been eliminated from most childhood vaccines. Especially when children receive so many vaccines at once, there's no good reason to use it as a preservative, when there are other options available.

And finally, a fund was set up to compensate families of children who've been injured by vaccines. This allows drug companies to produce the drugs without fear of liability, but allows injured children to be taken care of. I can only hope the vaccine courts are working as they should.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Dr. Wakefield's hearing doesn't start until March 2. No findings as of yet. nt

[trotsky]

3. Because it wasn't an "autism" decision.

You added that word, as did Kirby and the rest of the anti-vax bridage. Plus it's 2 years old - why didn't the anti-vax groups promote it then? It's been in the public record for 2 years!!

[uppityperson]

9. Seriously? The complaint is why isn't a 2 yr old story still being covered?

And it isn't about autism? Too funny. Thank you.

[pnwmom]

12. Not quite. The complaint isn't that an old story isn't still being covered.

The complaint is that it wasn't covered in the first place.

[varkam]

23. That also, apparently, isn't about autism. eom

[pnwmom]

28. I read the Court's written decision.

It was judged to be a Pervasive Developmental Disorder with autism symptoms that may or may not have been autism.

[varkam]

33. Funny - I read it too. Where did you read that it...

"may or may not have been autism"?

[cosmik debris]

4. I Know Why.

Read my sig line.

[damntexdem]

13. Because the whole thing is being pushed by a few anti-vaccination nutcases.

It does not DESERVE media attention.

Two important sentences from the court's finding:

‘The Court notes the Vaccine Program cases, the IOM report, and the several articles of medical literature referenced by Petitioner’s brief that have found that the MMR can directly cause ADEM.’

…

‘It is wellunderstood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.’

And what do we know now? We know that the vaccine-autism 'medical literature' was fudged. The court relied upon medical literature tainted by fraudulent research reporting.

And the true tragedy is that even had a true link been found to exist, much greater harm has been done to children by failure to vaccinate than by any unfortunate rare reactions.

[Why Syzygy]

16. Please supply fudge.

vaccine-autism 'medical literature' was fudged

[Why Syzygy]

21. If by "medical literature" you mean Dr. Wakefield, the GMC hasn't rendered

a decision yet. His hearing begins next week.
Why don't you wait for their conclusion before you jump to yours.

[varkam]

24. What about the retraction from the Lancet?

What about the fact that 10 of his co-authors washed their hands of it? What about the fact that his huge conflict of interest when he conducted that study?

Oh, silly me. I forgot. Bias only goes one way.

[Why Syzygy]

25. He's going to be reviewed by the proper authority. I'll go ahead and wait for their decision.

He wouldn't be the first doctor/scientist/researcher who was slandered.

[varkam]

26. Way to completely and unequivocally dodge the question(s).

The fact that he made shit up (excuse me, allegedly made shit up) has nothing to do with (a) the retraction, (b) the disowning of his research by his co-authors (c) his enormous financial conflicts of interest when he published the study, (d) the fact that he has failed to get anything else published or (e) that he, for some reason or another, left the UK after the GMC started proceedings against him for other professional misconduct allegations that have nothing to do with the recent revelations.

Care to address any of that?

Didn't think so. To you, he's just another poor persecuted truth-seeker - not a sham and a charlatan. Me thinks that has less to do with your understanding of the scientific method and more to do with the fact that you're buying what he's selling.

[Why Syzygy]

27. I haven't drawn any conclusions.

I want to see what the GMC has to say! You are the one going off on a tangent about ALLEGATIONS.
I'm not going to address the rest. No need to.

The next post you read will be "crickets".

[varkam]

32. Reflexes like a cat!

Why - I think you dodged that question even faster than you did the last one.

It's a demonstrable fact that his paper was retracted from the Lancet and that 10 of his co authors washed their hands of it. It's also a demonstrable fact that Wakefield had huge conflicts of interest when he did that study (namely working for a lawyer who was representing families suing vaccine manufacturers and trying to get a patent on his own MMR vaccine). It's also a demonstrable fact that Wakefield has not even been able to replicate his own results in another peer-reviewed journal. It's also a demonstrable fact that he left the UK and is now in the United States. It is also a demonstrable fact that the "making shit up" allegations are just one of a whole host of professional responsibility concerns that Wakefield has.

You should look up the word "allegation" (esp. when YOU USE IT IN BIG OLD CAPS), because I don't think it means what you think it does.

So are you going to be ignoring me, now? Our witty banter shall be a loss that I will mourn.

[Why Syzygy]

34. Why do you hate open minds?

If those are the facts of the case presented in testimony, GMC should have no trouble returning the decision you seek.
It last 28 days and starts Monday. It's like waiting for Santa, isn't it?

*crickets* I'm moving on.

[varkam]

35. "Why do you hate open minds?" Really?

:rofl:

Your mind should be open, but not so open your brain falls out.

And I don't know if I should tell you this about Santa, but...oh... never mind. That'd just be mean :P

[flyingobject]

18. Last week family finally awarded settlement of $810,000 + 30-40K a yr for AUTISM services

Vaccine Court: Autism Debate Continues
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and David KirbyPosted February 24, 2009

ANOTHER AUTISM CASE WINS IN VACCINE COURT
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=54811&mesg_id=54811

[trotsky]

19. As pointed out above, the actual court ruling does not mention autism.

Kennedy dishonestly and quite deceitfully ADDED that in order to push the anti-vax agenda. There's a reason they are now pushing this 2-year-old story: they're desperate.

[pnwmom]

29. I read the Court's decision and it refers to autism symptoms with

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, while reserving judgment as to whether the autistic symptoms constituted autism or not.

To pretend that there is an important distinction as to whether this severely damaged child has narrowly defined autism or merely a pervasive developmental disorder is deliberately obfuscatory.

[varkam]

31. On the first page, it specifically says "non-autistic developmental delay"

On what planet does "non-autistic" mean "autistic"?

[Jim__]

38. The court decision also notes that in laymen's terms, it is autism.

From the decision:

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct diagnosis.” Pet Ex. 35. Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

...


Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism
as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition,which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42. Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive developmental delay...due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

The discussion over whether or not vaccines can cause autism are being carried out under laymen's terms, and, clearly, people's concerns are about the generalized condition of autism and autistic symptoms, not technical medical diagnoses. Given that we have a public policy of universal vaccination, we have an obligation to do our best to determine when vaccinations, or special vaccination schedules, are indicated by the medical history, medical condition, etc, of the child that is to be vaccinated.

[trotsky]

39. But medically and scientifically it is not. Doesn't matter what the layman thinks.

Which is why the anti-vaxers didn't broadcast this ruling from the rafters when it was announced... TWO YEARS AGO. They knew at the time it wasn't evidence that really helped their disinformation campaign, so they skipped on it. But with all the flurry of terrible(for them) news lately, they had to grasp at something... thus, this ruling.

[Jim__]

106. Of course it matters what laymen think. It's mostly laymen's children that are being hurt.

Based on the court decision, a doctor would tell these laymen that their children have autism. That's apparently what Bailey's pediatrician said.

But, of course, the real issue is not semantics. The real issue is that if children, even a relatively small number are being hurt by vaccines, then we need to seriously look into this and prevent these injuries if at all possible.

[trotsky]

109. Sorry but it doesn't. Accuracy and precision are critically necessary in a "debate" such as this.

The only way the anti-vax movement can keep a "debate" going is when they purposely lie and muddy the waters - such as referring to this as an "autism" decision when it clearly was not.

The real issue is that if children, even a relatively small number are being hurt by vaccines, then we need to seriously look into this and prevent these injuries if at all possible.

I pointed out in another thread, and you totally ignored, the (scientifically established) fact that a real live measles infection causes the condition from which this child suffered (ADEM) in about 1 out of every 1000 cases. *IF* it was caused by the MMR vaccine in this case (which was determined by the court but hasn't been scientifically proven), it happens in about 1 out of every 1,000,000 shots.

What's safer? Would you *rather* take your chances with measles?

I'll also pose to you the same questions I previously gave to the OP, and she ignored - how safe must vaccines be made? What if making them 100% safe and effective is impossible? What if making them 99.9999999999% safe and effective means the vaccine will cost $10,000 a dose? I see many vaccination opponents say vaccines need to be made "safer". Well, what's your idea of safe, and what's your definition of effective, and what do you think is a reasonable cost for a vaccine in order to make it accessible to everyone? Do you have ANY stats or numbers whatsoever? Because no one in the anti-vax movement that I've seen ever coughs anything up.

[pnwmom]

115. We don't know what the incidence of this in shots because all we have

is a deeply flawed adverse effect reporting system. And the vaccine database, which could help answer this question, is closed to most researchers.

Unlike you, I refuse to place a specific monitory value on human life. But I believe that we have an ethical obligation, as long as we are going to have a mandatory vaccination program, to closely and continually monitor the safety of all vaccinations -- and the adverse effect reporting system that is now in effect is not up to the job. Not only does it rely on doctors to decide whether they want to file a form or not -- since multiple vaccines can be given at the same time, if an adverse effect occurs there is often no way to determine which vaccine caused the reaction.

Once the vaccine database is opened up to qualified researchers, I'll feel much more assured that the needed research either is being done -- or, at the very least, that the questions and the gaps will be more apparent.

[trotsky]

120. You are repeating false information, I'm afraid.

The vaccine database is only closed to those researchers who cannot demonstrate a methodology that will safeguard individual patient information. There's this little thing called HIPAA, heard of it? The star "scientists" in the anti-vax movement are the Geiers, whose testimony has been thrown out of court due to misuse of data. Pretty sad.

Unlike you, I refuse to place a specific monitory value on human life.

That's quite fine and noble, but we do this in society all the time. We *have* to, because we don't have an infinite supply of money. It's a little disingenuous to pretend that doing so is avoidable.

the adverse effect reporting system that is now in effect is not up to the job

You make this assertion a lot - but you've never proven it. More of the same tactics used by the anti-vaxers you are parroting - "what we do now is wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what needs to be done to make it right."

Once the vaccine database is opened up to qualified researchers

As I said, it already is. But I'll tell you a little secret: the anti-vax movement isn't interested in truth, they're interested in getting names and information so they can wage battles in courts and collect legal and judgment fees. Why? Because here's another little secret: the vaccine courts pay the legal fees of a complainant WHETHER THEY WIN OR LOSE. You'd think if the government wanted to set a whole bunch of obstacles in the way of parents to sue for vaccine damages, they wouldn't pay for their legal costs even if they lose, would they? But the lawyers who feed and support the anti-vaxers KNOW THIS and they get lots of money bringing these suits, win OR (much more often) lose.

[pnwmom]

122. I've already explained to you why the current adverse effect reporting system is

not up to the job, and you tried to cut me off with a personal attack. But I'll say it again: it relies on doctors having the time and willingness to fill out extra paperwork, and on their ad-hoc judgment as to whether symptoms after a vaccine may be vaccine related or not. And the system completely breaks down when there is a time lag between the vaccine, and the development of obvious symptoms.

What would be better? In addition to the adverse effects forms, the government should carry out ongoing epidemiological studies not relying on self-selected physician/patient participants.

[trotsky]

132. That's not an explanation - you haven't demonstrated anything.

And engaging in your own personal attacks is what got the whole subthread deleted.

VAERS is open to ANYONE who wants report an incident. There is a tremendous amount of follow-up when a vaccine is on the market - studies are ongoing, stats are collected, patterns analyzed.

the government should carry out ongoing epidemiological studies not relying on self-selected physician/patient participants

Did you know that they DO this already? Do a PubMed search on any vaccine to see the latest studies. It's all out there for the public to see.

[pnwmom]

142. That's funny, Trotsky.

I made no personal attack at all. But I did make a request to the MOD to delete the subthread, because I didn't want to engage with you any longer on the subject of my sister. I was happy to see quick action taken.

It is true that when the HPV vaccines were introduced, patients were encouraged to report adverse effects to VAERS. But it is not true for parents whose children are given standard infant vaccines. And when my son had a serious reaction and I asked my doctor to file a report, he refused -- and never told me that I could file one on my own.

[trotsky]

167. As I alerted on your attack post.

So we both got the subthread deleted. I know it's preferable to play the innocent victim, but I won't let you rewrite history. I was also happy to see your post removed.

But once again, no specifics. No ideas on what to do to improve things, just that what we have isn't good enough. This is where ignorance finally shows itself in the Google University age - you read all sorts of negative attacks and consider yourself so very informed, but when the rubber hits the road you have no idea what the issue actually involves. And somehow because I'm willing to let people who have really studied the issue set the policy, I'm the focus of your anger and attacks.

What a sad state of things.

[Why Syzygy]

169. Did you read this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=54941&mesg_id=55178

I think it's becoming crystal clear who here is really interested in solutions. What in the freaking world gives you the idea that anyone who has gone through this owes you any explanation.

You, sir, are the one not willing to take honest assessment.

I can't believe I wasted so much time answering your posts.

[trotsky]

170. Well you just wasted another few minutes, huh?

What solutions have been offered? None. Just an appeal to emotion, and a link to a long-discredited article. I fully realize that I am the surrogate for a lot of frustration and anger people feel, and here it happens again. For the record, I don't think anyone owes *me* an explanation, I think they owe SOCIETY that explanation. Why, exactly, our public health policy is wrong. What is so horrible about asking for real, factual solutions? Why do you feel the need to turn this around on me?

I suggest you not waste any more time, since clearly you aren't interested in facts and problem-solving either - just bashing.

[Why Syzygy]

171. Accountability.

The solution begins with accountability. Something your camp fights tooth and nail.
It IS about you and your apologist Partisan cronies who bring nothing but division to the table.

[trotsky]

172. My point precisely proven.

Not only do you waste (your word!) more time responding to me, you further attack *me* (or at least your caricature of some kind of blind pro-pharmaceutical strawman) instead of the issue.

Bringing terrible division to the table in the process, by the way. Pot, meet kettle.

[cosmik debris]

134. That's just not true. Anyone can file a report .

Who can report to VAERS?
Anyone can report to VAERS. The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (42%) and health care providers (30%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (12%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (9%). Vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form.
http://vaers.hhs.gov/vaers.htm#2

That's one of the problems with VAERS. Any crackpot with a conspiracy theory and a computer can fill out the forms. That is why so much of the VAERS data is useless.

[pnwmom]

140. If I didn't know that when it happened to my son, then many others don't either.

Probably the vast majority of parents don't. When doctors tell parents it's time to get their child's vaccinations, no one encourages them to fill out adverse effect reports. Are you kidding?

It was probably unusual enough that I even asked the doctor to file a report. Later, I did kick myself for not pursuing this further, however. But I was young, and I didn't know about our family history, and so I didn't push the doctor to do anything. I just eventually changed doctors -- got one who was much better at listening.

And this was my son's first DTP shot; his reaction was severe, but babies with reactions tend to get worse with each subsequent reaction. Luckily, we found out about the family history before he had any further boosters. Otherwise, it might have been a lawyer helping us to fill out an adverse effect report, after my son ended up developing encephalitis like my sister.

As to your other point about the VARS data, I agree to this extent: it is important data, but mostly in pointing in directions for further research. That is why I think that we should have epidemiological research tracking the safety of all vaccines, that doesn't rely on self-selected doctors or patients filing adverse effect reports.

[cosmik debris]

141. You made a false statement.

Now you are making excuses.

[pnwmom]

143. I didn't make a false statement, the system does rely on doctors to

file adverse effect reports.

It also allows parents to do so, without telling them how (except, perhaps, on the internet). What a joke.

[cosmik debris]

146. Even after I posted the truth, you still can't get it right

I'll try again, maybe you will read it this time.

The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (42%) and health care providers (30%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (12%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (9%). Vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form.

[pnwmom]

148. I already answered this, but I'll try again.

Parents who bring their babies in for mandatory vaccines aren't told that they can report adverse effects to the government, or how to do so -- much less encouraged to fill out the form.

But yeah, if the parents have already figured out that the VAERS system exists, then they "are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form." And if the parents have a doctor like mine, they'll likely be advised not to fill out the form -- that the unusually serious adverse effect that occurred probably wasn't related to the vaccine that the child just had.

[cosmik debris]

149. You can make up your mind, but you can't make up your facts, n/t

[pnwmom]

152. Do you comment merely to see your words in print?

Otherwise I can't see the point.

[cosmik debris]

153. I posted to correct the mis-information in your post. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

155. Operative word

of user name being *debris*.

[pnwmom]

156. Thanks

for the laugh, Syzygy

:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

159. Did you expect your disinformation to go unchallenged?

Do you expect to get away with telling falsehoods?

[pnwmom]

162. According to the DU rules,

you're not supposed to be accusing anyone of telling lies. You might want to read them someday.

[cosmik debris]

163. The truth is my defense.

It's a shame you can't use that defense.

:)

But I edited it just for you.

[pnwmom]

161. (self-delete)

[Why Syzygy]

173. Thank you for providing that link. nt

[Jim__]

129. You really don't seem to understand what the court ruling is stating.

Bailey's pediatrician diagnosed him with autism. He said he did that so the non-medical personnel would understand. We don't know how many parents have been told their children have autism (they do actually have autistic symptoms) when the formal medical diagnosis may be somewhat different. You're arguing their claims that their children have autism don't matter. That is ridiculous nonsense. Once again, people are concerned about their children getting severe autistic symtoms, as happened in this case. To attempt to hang your argument on a semantic technicality is actually quite pathetic.

I'm curious as to what conclusion you think should be drawn from the fact that measles causes ADEM more frequently than the MMR vaccine. Therefore, what? We should just accept the fact that some people will be severely damaged by the MMR vaccine? I think we want to fight against ADEM resulting from the vaccine, or otherwise, trying to identify children at higher risk for this result.

I don't know whether or not the susceptibility to ADEM from the MMR vaccine is random. We do know from the Hannah Poling case that certain people are more susceptible to bad reactions to vaccine than others. We do know that certain doctors have called for studies to identify subgroups that are susceptible to bad reactions. The call is for research to increase our knowledge and understanding. Since universal vaccination is public policy, that knowledge and understanding is essential. Yet, we are not aggressively pursuing that knowledge. Not only that, we get these absolute nonsensical semantical arguments about labels. It's the symptoms that concern people. The parents who are claiming their children have autism, have children with autistic symptoms. Thousands say these symptoms appeared almost immediately after a vaccine. We can't ignore that. I think it's clear that if there is a problem, there is a problem with subgroups. General population studies do not address this problem. The problem needs to be addressed.

As to your question as to what's safer, the vaccine or measles. It is obviously a false dilemma. If you can't see that, then that's a failure of your understanding of the problem. We know that universal vaccination is not an optimal vaccination strategy (HamdenRice clearly explained this from an economic point of view). An obvious 3rd option is to implement a better vaccination strategy, which knowledge of susceptible subgroups allows us to do. This removes a lot of the risk from vaccination and retains all the advantages of our current vaccination strategy.

The question of how safe vaccines must be made is a red herring. In the case of vaccines causing autism, we have thousands of parents claiming that they believed this happened to their children. We cannot just ignore their claim, nor can we simply claim that they imagined it, that they have selective memory, or use any other hand-waving excuse to ignore the issue. In a case where thousands of parents have made a claim, we need resolution. At the very least, we need to study the claims to know how soon after the vaccine the parents noticed a difference, and for claims falling within a certain time period, we need a model that predicts this occurrence. we need to know what is actually happening. Guessing is not sufficient.

[trotsky]

131. No, I fully understand what it's saying. You, however, WANT it to say something else.

Bailey was not diagnosed with autism. His pediatrician may have given him that label "so the non-medical personnel would understand" but there was no autism diagnosis. I am really sorry you want to see otherwise, but that is the plain and simple fact of the matter.

I'm curious as to what conclusion you think should be drawn from the fact that measles causes ADEM more frequently than the MMR vaccine.

First off, no one has established a clear link between MMR and ADEM. This court decision was a legal one, not a scientific one - as has been pointed out numerous times (and as you continue to ignore).

Secondly, measles doesn't just cause it more frequently - at "best" it causes it a THOUSAND times more frequently.

We should just accept the fact that some people will be severely damaged by the MMR vaccine?

Some people are severely damaged by cars - no matter how safe we make them. Now it's possible we could make cars absolutely safe. We could double or triple the steel strength and/or content, as well as make a mandatory nation-wide 5 mph speed limit. That would pretty much eliminate deaths due to cars, I'd say. But what would be the cost? Could we afford it as a society?

The basic point is - I am no infectious disease or vaccination expert. I am perfectly willing to defer to the people who are - unlike the anti-vaxers who insist they know MORE than educated experts. To be quite frank, the cost of public health probably WILL entail the loss of some lives. Do I want to minimize that? Of frigging COURSE I do. I must defer to the experts though - I'm not going to presume to know better than them if today's vaccine injuries are the absolute minimum we can do. They study this stuff. They view the stats. They know exactly how the vaccines work. YOU are the one saying you know better - that "too many" children are harmed by vaccines. How do you make this judgment? On what do you base it?

Because I see that once again you can offer no details about how to make things better. Just make them "better." A "better" vaccination schedule. You do realize that playing with the vaccination schedule can then open up wider windows for diseases to take hold, right? So it's not a cost-free exercise to play around with. Immunologists and disease specialists set these schedules, you know. They're not written and planned by pharmaceutical companies.

The question of how safe vaccines must be made is a red herring.

On the contrary, it's the central issue. How safe must they be for you and the anti-vax movement to be satisfied? That is the key question. Because what I hear from you and anti-vaxers is basically, "Never. I will never be satisfied."

[pnwmom]

145. Jim is clearly anything but an "anti-vaxer," but you have identified yourself

as a person who defers to the "experts." That's your choice. But if everyone took your position, there would be no progress. The government would still be mandating whole-cell DTP vaccine, for example, and people like you would still be saying that it's worth it -- because babies are even more likely to die from pertussis than they are from the vaccine. But because the families of killed and injured babies banded together into what you call the "anti-vax" crowd -- we now have both a safer vaccine and a way (flawed, but a way) for families to be compensated when injuries do occur.

You are also incorrect about how the vaccine schedules are set up. The reason that so many vaccines are clumped together isn't because of some scientific attempt to manage the windows through which diseases can take hold. It's because of a the sociological determination that parents can't be trusted to get their children vaccinated if they have to come in for repeated appointments for them, and an economic determination that it is more costly to have multiple appointments.

[trotsky]

166. You didn't really read my post then, because I never called him one.

In fact I was quite specific in referring to him "AND the anti-vaxers." Because he's engaging in the same arguments and same logic as them - just as you do, even though you both claim to support vaccination. And yeah, if respecting the knowledge of people who have actually studied an issue in an academic and professional environment is a flaw - well color me guilty. Obviously that is a HUGE flaw in the age of Google University where everyone is an expert because they can use a search engine.

I note however that STILL you refuse to answer any specifics - just that you don't like what we have. You have absolutely no idea if it can be made better - for a remotely affordable cost. But then, you know better than immunologists and doctors and everyone else, right?

[pnwmom]

111. Diagnosing a disorder like autism or PDD isn't an exact science with the

degree of precision you imply. It doesn't matter to the parent or child whether the autistic symptoms are called pervasive developmental disorder or autism. It didn't matter to the judge and it won't matter to the general public either.

The point is that the child was severely damaged, with symptoms of autism, and the Court determined that the vaccine was responsible. That's all any reasonable person would care about.

[trotsky]

114. Actually there is a great deal of precision involved.

Tests and observations by educated experts. But there's one very important detail in this case that the anti-vax movement would prefer people like you not know. And that is that the known condition that the child suffered from (ADEM) is a condition which is readily observable in an MRI. It's a breakdown of the myelin sheath of nerve fibers. And guess what? Autistic children don't have this. It isn't a prerequisite or necessary cause of autism at all.

Feel free to take your chances with measles, though. The real infection is scientifically known to cause ADEM (which can then lead to severe neurological damage) about 1000 TIMES more than the vaccine - IF the vaccine causes it, that is.

[eridani]

36. Because lawyers and judges are not scientists? n/t

[progressoid]

37. Why does this shit always seem to flourish on the weekends?

Do people save up their crazy for the weekend?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. USA TODAY FULL PAGE AD R/E AUTISM: "A Little Boy Shouldn't Have To Take On An Entire Industry Alone"

From Age of Autism's website, they thank Generation Rescue:

Generation Rescue Ad in USA Today: Court Again Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism Age of Autism. February 25, 2009

This ad from our sponsor Generation Rescue is running in USA Today, today, February 25, 2009. Click the photo to see a larger size. Click HERE for a .pdf of the ad.

Thank you to Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Stan Kurtz and GR co-founder J.B. Handley for always putting our children first. Always.

Here's the full page ad, but you can get better view from link lower down

Court Again Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism

Today, in a Huffington Post exclusive, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and investigative journalist
David Kirby reveal that in the recent case of Bailey Banks vs HHS, the vaccine court has
ruled vaccines caused Bailey’s autism and ordered compensation for his family.
Banks is the second case where the government could not deny the overwhelming evidence
showing vaccines caused a child’s autism. The first was the case of Hannah Poling in March
2008. The government conceded the case and awarded her family compensation.
Small victories for these children, but what about the hundreds of thousands of other families
struggling with autism? Who and what can they believe in this continuing vaccine-autism
controversy?

Congress, at the urging of the pharmaceutical industry, created the mysterious vaccine court
in 1986, which has not only protected vaccine makers from liability but also led to
a tripling in the number of vaccines given to our children.
Why does the Vaccine Court exist? Why are the rulings in favor of the children being
suppressed? Where is the justice for these parents?
In this new era of government accountability and transparency, the the one in 64 American
families dealing with autism deserve more. It’s time the government told the truth
about childhood vaccines.

Court Again Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism
www.generationrescue.org

GENERATION RESCUE
For a complete copy of the Vaccine Court’s ruling in Banks vs HHS, check out the Age of Autism blog: www.ageofautism.com
We want to thank Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy for their generous support of Generation Rescue and their never-ending commitment to solving the growing challenges of autism.


Full pdf of the actual ad here

[Orrex]

42. If only there were scientific studies to back up all of these court decisions

And if only these court decisions weren't a series of one-of-a-kind rulings.



If only...

[depakid]

43. Just like fringe Republicans (or a bad penny)

these folks just won't go away and stop spreading their harmful propaganda.

[Why Syzygy]

50. The click link that didn't work for you.

mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-26-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. The courts were the first to rule that cigs cause lung cancer

as well.

It took fifty years before the courts finally acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

There were billions of dollars at stake.

The dozens of court decisions that there "was no proof" were supported by physicians, expert witnesses of all types and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attorneys.

Experts and doctors alike stated over and over again that we need not continue studying this issue because there was just no proof.

Let me state very simply, vaccines can cause autism.

No real scientist would encourage us to stop studying this possibility. ~ Dr. Jay Gordon, M.D. ~ and Scientist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=54711&mesg_id=54790


Jay Gordon, MD
Jay Gordon is a nationally recognized pediatrician, nutritionist, lecturer, teacher, magazine columnist, and the author of numerous books including "Good Food Today, Great Kids Tomorrow," "Good Nights: Happy Parents' Guide to a Good Night's Sleep," "Listening to Your Baby" and "The ADD/ADHD Cure." Along with being the father of a wonderful college-age daughter, he considers among his greatest accomplishments his firing as a medical correspondent by all three major TV networks for "crimes" including on-air criticism of tobacco companies targeting children and of infant formula companies for discouraging breastfeeding (unfortunately the latter comments were live and immediately preceded a formula company commercial).

***
This is criticism of Dr. Gordon. It reminds me of the site I read wherein the right wingers were trying to prove that Obama uses hypnotism. They kept describing hypnotism without ever getting to the point, and failed to show any relationship at all between President Obama and hypnotism!

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=256

[trotsky]

61. There's a very important difference when the anti-vaxers try to bring up the tobacco industry...

as an analogy.

The main one being, SCIENCE had indicated for a long, long time the link between cigarettes and health problems. Today's science indicates NO link between vaccines and autism.

In the past, it was the cigarette companies conducting bogus surveys/research, smearing its critics, and engaging in disinformation campaigns.

Today, it's the anti-vax movement, spearheaded by Generation "Rescue" that conducts bogus surveys, smears its critics (Exhibit A: Paul Offitt), and engages in disinformation campaigns (such as using the word "autism" in a scare headline referencing a court decision that was about NON-AUTISTIC developmental delay.

So yeah, there's a comparison to be made here - but in this case, it's the anti-vaxers who match up much better with big tobacco.

[Why Syzygy]

63. Do you think the vaccine manufacturers could sue for libel/slander?

That's usually what happens when a party is responsible for harming another's reputation and business interests.

edit: oops . vaccine, not virus.

[trotsky]

64. I am no lawyer, but if the anti-vax movement succeeds beyond being a fringe celebrity cult,

and actually gets sizable numbers of people not to vaccinate, it seems like there would be grounds for such a case.

[conscious evolution]

175. That will never happen

Civil lawsuits require discovery.No pharmacy corporation will ever open its records to defense lawyers of plaintiffs in such lawsuits.They know that to do so will open up a can of worms they would not be able to control.
Instead they will stick with their paid shills and the dupes the shills manage to rope into supporting their agenda.

[HamdenRice]

53. So the Court decisions are based on science when they find no link but not when they do find a link?

Honestly, I don't get it. Are you saying that (1) when the Court finds that a plaintiff's symptoms were not caused by a vaccine, it's opinion is based on science, but when the Court finds that a plantiff's symptoms were cuased by a vaccine, it's opinion is not based on science?

Do you think that on some days the Court reviews the scientific evidence and on "no science" days it dispenses with science? If so, could you point to substantial discrepancies in the approaches as described in the opinions?

Or are you saying that (2) the cases in which the Court found no link between vaccines and autism those cases were not based on science? In other words, are you saying the Vaccine Court never uses scientific studies? Can you support that with evidence from the opinions and their description of the methodology used to evaluate claims?

It seems that logically, you have to be arguing either 1 or 2.

[Orrex]

55. Who said that? Not me, that's for sure.

The burden of proof in a civil court case is a preponderance of evidence. That's a much lower standard than scientific proof, don't you agree?


But let's turn it around, since your love for even-handedness is so well known:

Why is it that when a great many scientific studies and court decisions show that there is no causative link between vaccines and autism, these are dismissed, but when a small handful of court cases determine that vaccines have led to autism, these are taken as inviolable truth?

I would be interested to hear your opinion of this obvious double standard.

[HamdenRice]

56. What double standard? And you haven't addressed the question

Your statement clearly indicated your belief that the decision finding a link between the vaccine and autism symptoms was not backed up by scientific studies:

<quote>

If only there were scientific studies to back up all of these court decisions

<end quote>

So you are saying that there were no scientific studies backing up these court decisions. Could you show this statement to be true by reference to one of those opinions? And if these court decisions are not backed up by science, are you saying they are never backed up by science? Or only when they find a link?

As for your question that presumes that studies "are dismissed," I think you need to take that up with people who dismiss them, not with me.

[Orrex]

57. I'm not saying that the court decisions aren't backed by science

I'm saying that they aren't backed by scientific studies, by which I mean exactly the kind of large-sample studies needed to declare generally that vaccines cause autism. A handful of isolated cases, which is all the antivaxers have, do not a study make.


Also, you're asking me to prove a negative. Show me which scientific studies preceded these court decisions. And, if these studies exist, why have they not been applied more generally? Why have the only been used in a very small number of cases?

[HamdenRice]

59. But if the Court finds even one anecdotal case to be true, doesn't that mean your position is wrong?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the pro-vaccine position, but it seems to have been for a long time that vaccines simply cannot cause autism. That means that if even one administration of the vaccine caused one case of autism, then the claim is not true -- even if there is no statistical correlation in a large scale study because the cases are rare or the etiology involves other factors that would make a statistical correlation invisible.

The cases seem to be showing that in some cases the anecdotal evidence is true, even if the statistical correlation can't be shown.

That would be true of a lot of environmental injuries and mass torts, although "science" generally accepts cause and effect.

[Orrex]

60. Perhaps the position has been stated unclearly, at least mine

For years here on DU the claim has been made that Thimerosal in particular and vaccines in general are responsible for the upsurge in cases of autism. The clear statement is that vaccines and/or Thimerosal is responsible for this upsurge, rather than a change in diagnostic criteria or the like.

My position has been that there is no evidence that vaccines or Thimerosal causes autism, by which I referred to the upsurge and not to a tiny handful of individual cases.


So I find it questionable when antivaxers claim these individual cases as proof of their position, when each is unique and poorly applicable to other cases, if at all.


An absolutist position would be foolish, of course, so I have always attempted to state clearly that the evidence does not support a causal Thimerosal/autism link. A few anecdotal cases don't really change that, because if there is a causal link in these few cases, it's relevant only to those few cases, in much the same way that one person's peanut butter allergy is not necessarily relevant to another's respiratory distress.

[pnwmom]

117. The Court decided that there are.

And there is no other option than one-of-a-kind rulings because this system was set up as a way to eliminate lawsuits and liability for the manufacturers. Without it, hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits would have been pressed against them in these cases.

[flyingobject]

44. Big Pharma Bull Shit

Big Pharma owned our congress so that US GOv would be responsible for protecting Big Pharma
from the damages their shit does.

Its pretty hard for the average person to win in BUll SHIT I mean vaccine court,
you have to have top notch experts and spend a BULL SHIT LOAD of money.
Most folks can't do it.

But its all about keeping Big Pharma and its parasitic CEOs wealthy.

Thats

[trotsky]

135. Did you know that the government pays the legal fees of complainants...

whether or NOT they win? I.e., it costs nothing to bring a case up to the vaccine court. But because those lawyers get paid, win or lose, they have a vested interest in bringing suits to the court. Interesting, huh?

But its all about keeping Big Pharma and its parasitic CEOs wealthy.

And certain lawyers. There is money on both sides of this.

[tanngrisnir3]

45. This sort of anti-sciencism is such loathesome bullshit.

Giving people false hope based on reprehensible gutter-science.

[uppityperson]

46. I really hate advertising, and ads that look like they aren't ads.

[varkam]

47. Oh, wait - so now the court decisions mean something again?

And PDD-NOS is not autism. For fuck's sake - on the first page of the decision it says "non-autistic developmental delay". When did a "non-autistic developmental delay" become (Autism)?

Further note that the ADEM which caused the PDD can also be kicked off by measles.

[Why Syzygy]

48. Interesting, isn't it?

The vaccine can cause the same type of brain damage as that of a severe case of measles.
What does that remind you of?

Homeopathy

Few studies have examined the effectiveness of specific homeopathic remedies. Professional homeopaths, however, may recommend one or more of the following treatments for rubella based on their knowledge and clinical experience. Before prescribing a remedy, homeopaths take into account a person's constitutional type -- your physical, emotional, and intellectual makeup. An experienced homeopath assesses all of these factors when determining the most appropriate remedy for a particular individual.

* Aconitum -- for individuals who experience a sudden fever, rash, and thirst
* Belladonna -- for rubella that appears suddenly, is associated with high fever, flushed face and red lips, and heat that radiates from the skin. This remedy is most appropriate for individuals who perspire minimally and may experience strange dreams.
* Ferrum phosphoricum -- this remedy is used early in the illness when symptoms are not specific and mild-to-moderate fever is present. Children for whom this remedy is appropriate tend to be tired with a mildly flushed face.
* Pulsatilla -- for individuals with fever and chills that are worse in warm rooms and better in fresh air. Symptoms tend to be less intense than for the other remedies listed.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/rubella-000145.htm

[varkam]

49. What the hell does homeopathy have to do with vaccines?

"There's no scientific evidence to support these claims...but people who sell it say it really really works!!1!"

Can't argue with that.

Moreover, you failed to address my point about how GR flat-out lied in their advert.

[Why Syzygy]

51. You know what, varkam....

I'm going to tell you this one time. It won't be repeated. (can't swear to that)

When someone says that another person has to EARN their respect, they are wrong. We give respect up front because we would like respect. I start off regarding everyone equally. Never was one for labels and little boxes. I try not to stereotype.

But, at some point Game Theory activates. After that, the probability of cooperation is greatly diminished.


ETA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=54941&mesg_id=55037
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-28-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. I read the Court's decision and it refers to autism symptoms with

Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 05:50 AM by pnwmom
Pervasive Developmental Disorder, while reserving judgment as to whether the autistic symptoms constituted autism or not.

To pretend that there is an important distinction as to whether this severely damaged child has narrowly defined autism or merely a pervasive developmental disorder is deliberately obfuscatory.

[varkam]

52. Huh?

What in the hell are you talking about and how does it relate to an analogy between homeopathy and vaccines?

When someone says that another person has to EARN their respect, they are wrong. We give respect up front because we would like respect. I start off regarding everyone equally. Never was one for labels and little boxes. I try not to stereotype.

But, at some point Game Theory activates. After that, the probability of cooperation is greatly diminished.

Then you probably should have tried to avoid calling other posters shills and whatnot. Kind of makes me not want to cooperate with you.

ETA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-28-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. I read the Court's decision and it refers to autism symptoms with

Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 05:50 AM by pnwmom
Pervasive Developmental Disorder, while reserving judgment as to whether the autistic symptoms constituted autism or not.

To pretend that there is an important distinction as to whether this severely damaged child has narrowly defined autism or merely a pervasive developmental disorder is deliberately obfuscatory.


As I posted elsewhere - I read the decision as well. Right on the first page it says "non-autistic developmental delay". It also is contained within the opinion that measles can have the exact same result. I guess we should ban measles, too! Oh...wait...

[Why Syzygy]

54. Cry me a river.

I've never called anyone a "shill". Don't you think I have a better vocabulary than that?
I only use the term "shill" when playing poker with them.

If you're referring to someone else calling you names, you need to just deal with it. :cry:
Can you appreciate the irony of griping about being called names, when there are a few here constantly calling others "woo-woo"?


Just since you're so curious and hung up on the Ignore function...
I have two people on Ignore. They are extreme cases of disrespecting the posting privileges of others.
The replies they receive reaffirm that I am missing nothing. And, enjoying my membership so much more.

btw, I'm not here to discuss a vaccine/homeopathic analogy. That was a one time event.

[varkam]

107. You must have short-term memory loss.

Do you remember your post a couple days ago where you said at least I participate in other forums? You may not have used the word shill, but the insinuation was pretty clear.

Can you appreciate the irony of griping about being called names, when there are a few here constantly calling others "woo-woo"?

Not really - since even though woo-woo is assholish it's not tossed around as an ad hominem fallacy. If you can't appreciate that difference, I suggest you think on it for a moment.

btw, I'm not here to discuss a vaccine/homeopathic analogy. That was a one time event.

If you're not "here to discuss" it, then why in the hell did you bring it up?

[Why Syzygy]

108. I referred to them "Partisan".

I can think of other reasons one might take that route other than for a paid performance (shill).
Shills are paid to act as a decoy to suck people in. I don't see that level of persuasion coming from your camp.

I'll think about your excuse for the term "woo-woo", because I just don't get it.
Oh, wait. You mean, "ad hominem fallacy". You mean it's true, so you can use it?

[varkam]

110. No. Think for a moment.

If I call you a woo-woo, I'm not saying that you're wrong because you're a woo-woo. It really has nothing to do with why you're wrong. When you call others a shill, though, you're saying that they're wrong because of it. It's called "poisoning the well".

For instance, I would say that homeopathy is complete woo-woo - but it is such because any rigorous scientific investigation of it has failed to make results and because there's not even a mechanism described for how a single particle of a substance would have any effect whatsoever on the human body - not because of any imagined property of the person who espouses it.

And actually, you didn't refer to anyone as "partisan" in the post I was talking about (or in any other post in that thread). Taken into context with myself and others joking about being called shills, I would say you probably need to look into that short-term memory loss thingy you've got going on.

[Why Syzygy]

112. I honestly think you are the confused one. whatever...

[varkam]

113. "whatever" Wow. Can't argue with that!

But like I said earlier, if you want to be respected, then I would advise you not to insinuate that people here are shills.

Have a nice day :hi:

[SidDithers]

58. Oh, please tell me that you're using the example of homeopathy...

to support your vaccine/autism position.

Pretty please.

Sid

[pnwmom]

118. You should try reading beyond page 1 of the decision.

You might learn something, though I doubt it.

[varkam]

151. I read all 28 pages. On what page did it say that it was autism?

[trotsky]

62. You've now spammed this forum with three separate threads concerning the same court case.

Each time you refuse to listen to anyone else or discuss the actual facts of the case (most glaringly, that "autism" is not part of it).

What do you hope to accomplish with your spamming?

[flyingobject]

136. I guess the nutbags will say that Jim Carrey is anti scientific or dumb or gullible

next.

After all, he's only a multi millionaire and comic genius, he couldn't be that smart
or have any common sense, or good instinct... riiiiight.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

144. Being rich or funny doesn't make him a scientist

Being a parent doesn't give him any special authority either. Common sense, instinct, high intelligence - none of those necessarily make him a better authority on the subject than scientists who have studied the problem using real scientific methods.

[cosmik debris]

147. I think YOU are the comic genius!

That's the funniest post I've seen in ages!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. Huffington Post: AUTISM VACCINE DEBATE CONTINUES, ANOTHER AUTISM CASE WINS IN VACCINE COURT

Reposted with edits.


*** Please recommend this thread if you want more research on Vaccines and Autism.***

Vaccine Court: Autism Debate Continues

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and David KirbyPosted February 24, 2009

ANOTHER AUTISM CASE WINS IN VACCINE COURT
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

On February 12, the federal "Vaccine Court" in Washington issued a sweeping ruling in three highly touted "test cases" against families who claimed that their childrens' autism had been caused by vaccines. The Special Masters in those three cases found that Petitioners failed to establish causation between MMR vaccines, the mercury-laced vaccine preservative thimerosal, and autism (the court decision, which is under appeal, deferred any finding on a thimerosal-only theory of causation). The rulings could have a significant precedential impact on some 5,000 families who opted to bring their cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) hoping that the vaccine court would officially hold that the MMR vaccine or thimerosal had caused autism in their children.

The New York Times joined the government Health Agency (HRSA) and its big pharma allies hailing the decisions as proof that the scientific doubts about vaccine safety had finally been "demolished." The US Department of Health and Human services said the rulings should "help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism." The Times, which has made itself a blind mouthpiece for HRSA and a leading defender of vaccine safety, joined crowing government and vaccine industry flacks applauding the decisions like giddy cheerleaders, rooting for the same court that many of these same voices viscously derided just one year ago, after Hannah Poling won compensation for her vaccine induced autism.

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer."
Bailey's diagnosis is Pervasive Developmental Disorder -- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) which has been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by CDC, HRSA and the other federal health agencies since at least the 1990s.

...more at the link

I'VE TAKEN ON BIG ISSUES BEFORE, SUCCESSFULLY. SO DON'T GIVE UP, I WONT, DONT YOU EITHER.

I have posted over 12000 times at DU since Jan 31st 2004, and am a respected poster in the Election Reform Forum. One of my OPs was featured on DU's front page a few days ago.
I organized activists to get a paper ballot law passed in my home state. (see www.ncvoter.net).
I also went to court against Diebold, to protect and defend the law we worked so hard for in my state.
I have fought big fights against lobbyists, voting vendors, and opponents of verified voting, this is just one more fight for human rights.

Be determined don't give up, dont go away, stick to the issue, its about science not anything else.

I'm not to step away from this cause. Not ever. Lets join Age of Autism, David Kirby, RFK Jr and others in speaking out about this and fighting for more research.

[elleng]

66. Excellent.

.

[flyingobject]

67. You're good for your word

Thanks for sticking with it!

[trotsky]

68. And here's the link that explains your error.

No one doubts your Democratic "creds". No one doubts your passion or willingness to fight. But take your own advice: it is indeed about science and not anything else.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/stupid_cubed_david_kirby_rfk_jr_and_gene.php

[Jim__]

88. Read the decision - the blog you referenced edited the footnote from the actual decision.

The description from your blog:

Note the difference. The claim in the ruling is not that ADEM led to pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specialized (PDD-NOS). The ruling is about pervasive developmental delay (PDD). The difference is more than a matter of semantics, as Kev points out. PDD is not the same thing as PDD-NOS. In fact, the ruling itself makes this point very, very clear in one of its footnotes:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a 'subthreshold' condition in which some - but not all - features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply "PDD." The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as "atypical personality development," "atypical PDD," or "atypical autism") is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.

In the actual decision, there is a little preface to the footnote:

Pervasive Developmental Delay describes a class of conditions, and it is apparent from the record that the parties and the medical records are referring to Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (“PDDNOS”):

The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a
diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not
Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as "atypical personality development," "atypical
PDD," or "atypical autism") is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked
impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but
when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ''subthreshold'' category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific
guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are
typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism. The lack of definition(s) for
this relatively heterogeneous group of children presents problems for research on this condition. The
limited available evidence suggest that children with PDD-NOS probably come to professional
attention rather later than is the case with autistic children, and that intellectual deficits are less
common.

The actual footnote in the decision is a direct contradiction of the claim in that blog: The claim in the ruling is not that ADEM led to pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specialized (PDD-NOS). The ruling is about pervasive developmental delay (PDD).

And, yes, technically the disease is not what the medical community calls autism. It is what laymen call autism:

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that 7
pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for
non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct
diagnosis.” Pet Ex. 35. Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to
be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum
disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

...


Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism
as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition,
which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42.
Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in
more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive
developmental delay...due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations
resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two
are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez
stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

However, people are concerned about the manifestation of autistic symptoms, not the technical medical name for the particular condition. In this case, it sounds like the child has autistic conditions and other symptoms - not a redeeming claim.

[trotsky]

89. Your spin doesn't change the problems with the anti-vax attack at all.

Plus there's this gem:

he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive developmental delay...due to ADEM.”

First, it needs to be noted (and was in the blog post) that this case was decided almost 2 years ago and has been part of the public record since then. If it's the clincher for the vaccines/autism theory, why was it sat on for all that time?

Second (this is an explanation for the item above), it can only be said from this case that the vaccine caused ADEM, which *led* to PDD (not autism) in this particular individual. So if again the vaccine/autism theory is correct, we should expect to see every autistic child having gone through ADEM to get there. But we don't. Not by a long shot. Using this case is a weak, weak attempt to keep the vaccine/autism theory relevant after several recent major setbacks. THAT'S why it's all of a sudden being pushed, because the anti-vaxers needed something, ANYTHING, to appear to remain relevant.

And third, you are aware, I hope, that a real live case of measles results in ADEM in about 1 or 2 out of every 1000 infections, right? If the vaccine is responsible in this case, then it averages about 1 out of every 1,000,000 injections. (Not leading to PDD or autism all the time, either.) If you want to take your chances with a real measles infection go right ahead.

[Jim__]

90. Direct from the decision - in the decision PDD refers to PDDNOS

That's what the footnote actually said. Yet your blog claimed that the footnote clearly stated the opposite. But he could only make that claim by editing the footnote.

You have to claim that the actual decision was spin. Trying to deny what the footnote explicitly states does not add to your credibility.

Your claim: Second (this is an explanation for the item above), it can only be said from this case that the vaccine caused ADEM, which *led* to PDD (not autism) in this particular individual. So if again the vaccine/autism theory is correct, we should expect to see every autistic child having gone through ADEM to get there is sheer illogical nonsense. Sort of like claiming that cigarettes can't cause cancer because people who don't smoke get cancer.

[trotsky]

91. However if you read the actual decision you will find such excerpts as:

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician
on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that
pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for
non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct (i.e. technical)
diagnosis.” Pet Ex. 35. Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to
be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum
disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

And you ignored the rest of my post.

[Jim__]

92. Yes, read the decision and keep the context in mind.

The more complete quote from Dr. Lopez (which I've already cited in my post #23):

Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autismas a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition, which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42.
Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in
more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive
developmental delay...due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations
resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two
are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez
stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

And again, from the original footnote: PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis.

And again: The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs..

So, when we read your little excerpt in the context of what is clearly stated elsewhere, autism is a more generalized condition than Dr Lopez' diagnosis, Dr Lopez' diagnosis is more specific than autism - which is not a diagnosis.

[trotsky]

93. And yet you ignored what it said. I thought I would repeat it just to make sure.

But you are very good at ignoring, since you continue to ignore the other three points in my post.

[Jim__]

95. For the record, I updated my post #27 before I saw your response but after you made it.

But, in my post #23, I cited a more direct reference to TR at 32:

Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in
more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive
developmental delay...due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32.

Note the ellipsis immediately after the induced developmental delay - so we're not sure what we're missing. But, in addition, I'll refer you back to my post #27 (added after your reply but before I saw your reply), the decision explicitly states that PDD is not a diagnosis.

[trotsky]

96. All your self-referencing has just served to muddle the whole issue,

which I can only guess was your intent to begin with given your constant refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address the other points I made.

Back to Orac:

For one thing, it's not even entirely clear that he had ADEM, as the testimony in the case reveals, given the arguments, although let's say for the moment that he definitely did. Next, there's virtually no scientific literature to support the link between ADEM or PDD (or PDD-NOS, for that matter). Basically, the ruling is best read as saying that in this case MMR might have caused ADEM, which might have resulted in PDD. That's a lot different than RFK, Jr.'s confident blather that this is a slam-dunk indication that the court has accepted that vaccines can cause autism.

Would you agree with the bolded statements? If not, why not? (For the sake of getting past your red herring, put "PDD-NOS" in place of "PDD" if you wish.)

[Jim__]

97. The issue is not at all muddled.

Although I can understand why you wish it were. If you're having trouble following it, let me help you:

• orac misrepresented the meaning of the footnote talking about PDD and PDD-NOS
  
• the footnote explicitly states that the case is about PDD-NOS
  
• you claimed that Dr Lopez diagnosed Bailey with PDD
  
• the ruling explicitly states that PDD is not a diagnosis
  

As to the bolded part of your statement, it directly contradicts the courts finding of fact. In particular, you bolded: the ruling is best read as saying that in this case MMR might have caused ADEM ...

The court explicitly stated under its factual findings:

Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well understood
that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed
herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.

The decision is best read by acknowledging its explicit statements. Orac's claim is explicitly contradicted by the court's factual findings.

The issue about whether the court was referring to PDD or PDD-NOS is not a red herring, and it's not my "wish" that in the decision PDD referred to PDD-NOS. It is an explicit statement in the decision.

[trotsky]

99. But now you've backtracked.

The court found legally, but not scientifically (where the evidence is still very weak) that MMR can cause ADEM. BUT from that step to PDD (or PDD-NOS, if you prefer) is still a tenuous leap - one which your response does not address.

And this of course precisely demonstrates part of Orac's central argument against the anti-vax position: the incredible shrinking hypothesis. The anti-vaxers have come a LONG way from their initial position, namely that vaccines are responsible for the entire "autism epidemic" - to the remarkably restricted claim that there exists a tiny subset of individuals who MAY be sensitive to SOME kind of component of SOME kind of vaccine. And it should be noted, since the MMR does not and never contained thimerosal, the fact that Kirby et al are now pushing this particular case is a tacit admission that thimerosal was never the problem to begin with - contrary to what they so vehemently screamed in the past.

That's another reason why we didn't hear about this case for 2 years: it helps undermine the old thimerosal arguments. Are you too abandoning thimerosal as a cause?

[Jim__]

100. Oh please!

The statement you cited about the MMR vaccine causing ADEM was: the ruling is best read as saying that in this case MMR might have caused ADEM ...

But, the actual court ruling stated:

Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.

Italics included in the court ruling. Now you'r claiming that what he actually said, is not what he meant. Please.

As for the rest of your argument, it's nothing but a strawman.

I've never (or almost never - I can't remeber everything I've ever said) talked about thimerosal, nor did I ever blame any autism epidemic on vaccines.

[trotsky]

101. Once again, it's a legal finding, not a scientific one. I already pointed that out.

And the ultimate LIE in the OP as well as the alarmist bullshit from Kirby/Kennedy is the fact that they introduced the word "autism" into this whole piece. 2 years AFTER the ruling was put forth. Such dishonesty and deceit - and yet it's the best the anti-vax movement has.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

102. QUOTE: "Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination."

plain and simple.

[trotsky]

130. ADEM is not equal to autism.

Even more plain and simple.

[pnwmom]

123. This case proves absolutely nothing about thimerosal, one way or another.

You wrongly insist that there must be only one pathway by which all vaccines could result in autism symptoms. This is patent nonsense.

[trotsky]

133. Pick a cause, any cause.

The incredible shrinking hypothesis! First it was that thimerosal caused ALL cases of autism because autism = mercury poisoning. (Yes, that was one of the original anti-vax claims - and in fact several of the wackier groups still think it.) Now it's a vaccine that never contained thimerosal MIGHT just create autism-LIKE symptoms in one in every million children. How much smaller can it get? Tune in and see with the next court case!

[pnwmom]

121. "If again the vaccine/autism theory is correct, we should expect to see every

autistic child having gone through ADEM to get there."

Nonsense. It is entirely possible that there are multiple ways for a vaccine to cause damage that ends up causing or triggering autism symptoms.

[pnwmom]

119. Excellent, well thought out post, Jim.

Thanks for taking the time to put this all together.

[flyingobject]

69. How Victims of Childhood Vaccines became Villains

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/how-victims-of-childhood-vaccines-became-villains.html#more

[earth mom]

70. This is a BOMBSHELL as well as AWESOME NEWS! So where are the DU naysayers now?

Just as I thought-They got nothing. It's so quiet on this thread you can hear a pin drop. :eyes:

To the OP: Thanks for posting this! Never Give Up! :thumbsup:

[Why Syzygy]

71. We need to kick

all the stories like this to the Greatest page. The majority of DU are reasonable, concerned citizens.

[earth mom]

75. Let's Rec this up people!

:woohoo:

[Orrex]

72. Perhaps you should check out this article

Link here.

[Orrex]

73. Additionally, when you see the same crap posted one hundred times over

It becomes tiresome to refute it, especially when the antivax truebelievers aren't going to be swayed in any case.


The best that "the DU naysayers" can do is post when it seems most useful to do so, so that a casual reader of an antivax thread won't get the impression that everyone here is a woo with an axe to grind.

[earth mom]

74. FYI-A child with autism was awarded over 800K because of the MMR Vaccine.

That's hardly something to be kicked under the carpet and ignored.

As for woo woo-you might want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you'll do ANYTHING to deny the truth about vaccines & the pharma giants.

Because that's what you pharma giant woo woo shills do on every autism thread here on DU.

Except you can't do it on this one, because the truth is coming out and you guys can't hide it anymore.

Too bad, so sad-NOT! :rofl:

[Orrex]

76. Did you click on the link?

Further, a statutory decision is nothing at all like a scientific study. Would you like me to explain the difference to you?

[earth mom]

77. I don't click on links that don't tell me where I'm going or have ZERO information

to go along with it.

[Orrex]

78. Fine. Then go click on Trotsky's link; it neatly debunks the bullshit in the OP.

[pnwmom]

126. And Jim's posts on this thread neatly debunk Trotsky's smoke and mirrors. n/t

[earth mom]

79. Did you even read the article from the Huffington Post? I think not.

The so called "studies" you speak of are a TOTAL JOKE.

FYI:

"But the greatest source of epidemiological data is the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) -- the government maintained medical records of hundreds of thousands of vaccinated children -- which HHS has gone to great lengths to keep out of the hands of plaintiffs' attorneys and independent scientists. Unfortunately the vaccine court has judicially anointed this corrupt concealment by consistently denying every motion by petitioners to view the VSD. The raw data collected in the VSD would undoubtedly provide the epidemiological evidence needed to understand the relationship between vaccines and autism. The absence of such studies makes it easy for judges to say to plaintiffs they have not met their burden of proving causation.

Meanwhile, CDC has actively, openly and systematically suppressed and defunded epidemiological studies that might establish a causal link. CDC has ignored repeated pleadings that it fund peer reviewed studies of unvaccinated American cohorts like the Amish and home-schooled children. At the same time the agency has worked overtime ginning up a series of fatally-flawed European studies purporting to dispute the link. Even a cursory critical examination reveals that the oft-cited Danish, English, and Italian studies are rank tobacco science. Many of them were funded by CDC, a badly compromised agency, performed by vaccine industry scientists, and published in miserably conflicted journals.

Needless to say, the existence of these phony studies, combined with the deliberate dearth of epidemiological evidence makes it easy for the special masters to dodge a politically explosive finding by holding that there is "insufficient evidence."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

[Orrex]

80. Did you click on the link?

[earth mom]

81. I'm not going to read trash, lies and bullshit.

:puke:

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

83. This false flag has been debunked. (judicial rulings are insignificant)

Here's one >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=54711&mesg_id=54790

There were another couple of posts which I can't find right now. It's another red herring.

[Orrex]

84. Sorry. Can't read that post for some reason

...

[Why Syzygy]

85. Works for me.

:shrug:

[eridani]

105. That lawyers decide scientific questions is just bullshit n/t

[HamdenRice]

86. The Vaccine Court is wisely taking these on a "case by case" basis, which means ...

that all together these cases mean that vaccines don't "cause" autism in general, but neither can we say that a particular administration of a vaccine "can never" cause autism.

Too many on both sides of the issue seem to be hoping for the Vaccine Court to make one or the other of the above statements.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

94. The purpose of Vaccine Court is to protect the vaccine programs first and above all else

and the awards are a sort of protection for Big Pharma.

I would like to see real research rather than wait until children are injured and their
families need help.

The fewer children made sick by vaccines, the better, and the more confidence the public
will have in vaccines.

[trotsky]

98. May I ask you some honest questions?

Being totally sincere here.

What if a 100% effective and 100% safe vaccine could be made - but doing so would raise its price to $10,000 a dose? What if it's just not technologically and economically possible to make a perfect vaccine?

Related to that, how few side effects are acceptable to you? 1 out of every 1,000,000 vaccine recipients? 1 out of every 10,000,000? 100 million? A billion? Especially when considering the mortality rate of the diseases the vaccine prevents are many, many orders of magnitude higher? Just want to get an idea of what you're aiming for.

And as a side note, if a safer and more effective vaccine could be made, don't you think "big pharma" has a financial motivation to find it? I mean, they'd instantly become the vaccine of choice and bury their competition, right? Making tons of money, which is their #1 goal?

[pnwmom]

128. No, big pharma doesn't have the motivation to find it, because they make

plenty of money supplying the current vaccinations under the system now in place.

That is why the old, whole cell, DTP vaccine was used for more than 40 years, causing cases of encephalitis resulting in permanent damage to children in multiple generations, before it was finally replaced by a safer vaccine. It was only after the pressure from the "anti-vax crowd," (as you call them), had resulted in enough bad P.R. to lead the government to set up the vaccine courts, that the government finally decided to encourage research into a safer DTP vaccine.

[flyingobject]

137. all of these vaccines are expensive, do they ever become "generic"

or does Big PHarma have a really sweet deal here, partly in thanks to
Gov Cronies mandating so many vaccines.

Awesome how Big Pharma got Gov Cronies to mandate that immigrants
had to get that HPV vaccine.

[pnwmom]

138. Good question, flyingobject.

I think you're onto something.

And it was disgusting that the government mandated such a new, unproven vaccine to immigrants.

[trotsky]

174. Actually, very few vaccines are all that expensive.

In fact, that was one of the primary reasons there was such a terrible flu vaccine shortage a couple of years ago - there just wasn't enough money in it for American pharmaceuticals to have a supply here. We had to rely on a manufacturer in the UK.

Thimerosal, ironically, was one factor that kept vaccines a lot cheaper because it was such an effective, safe, and cheap preservative.

[trotsky]

168. But they could make MORE.

Get your conspiracy straight - does big pharma pursue profits above all else or not?

And no, the DTP vaccination change did NOT come from anything resembling today's anti-vax movement. It came from the dedicated researchers, scientists, doctors, and related health professionals who are routinely bashed in this forum for being associated with "big pharma."

[pnwmom]

127. Agreed. n/t

[SidDithers]

87. Go Democrats!...nt

Sid

[earth mom]

103. Evening Kick!

:kick:

[eridani]

104. So court decisions are now the way to decide scientific questions? n/t

[pnwmom]

124. They are in the case of vaccines, eridani.

In 1986, the vaccine court system was set up as a way to encourage vaccinations. These courts would provide an avenue for parents who thought their child had been damaged by a vaccine to make their claims -- and, at the same time, the vaccine manufacturers would be legally off the hook for liability lawsuits.

On the other hand, there is nothing new about courts having to decide scientific questions. This occurs in thousands of product liability lawsuits every year.

[varkam]

150. Wrong answer.

Preponderance of the evidence = 50.1%. Not exactly a scientific conclusion. There's a difference - a mighty big difference - between a legal conclusion of proximate cause and a scientific conclusion of cause.

[eridani]

158. The courts make no decisions about scientific validity

They decide to compensate people who have suffered harm if they can't specifically rule out vaccines as a cause. This has no bearing on scientific truth, but instead is a way to serve the public good, particularly in the absence of universal health care.

Product liability cases are not tests of scientific processes, and involve such notions as preponderance of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, etc. That's appropriate to law and not science.

[Why Syzygy]

116. WYVBC .. For these cases .. Did the reaction occur on the 1st or 2nd dose?

Everyone else is required to take a second dose in order to protect 2-5%. I don't like that at all.
Do you have information on percentage of first time reactions vs. second?


The MMR vaccine is a mixture of three live attenuated viruses, administered via injection for immunization against measles, mumps and rubella (also called German measles). It is generally administered to children around the age of one year, with a second dose before starting school (i.e. age 4/5).

The second dose is not a booster; it is a dose to produce immunity in the small number of persons (2-5%) who fail to develop measles immunity after the first dose.<1>

In the United States, the vaccine was licensed in 1971 and the second dose was introduced in 1989.<2> It is widely used around the world; since introduction of its earliest versions in the 1970s, over 500 million doses have been used in over 60 countries. As with all vaccinations, long-term effects and efficacy are subject to continuing study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine
*emphasis and format

[pnwmom]

139. I don't know, but your question brings up another question.

The polio vaccine we use now is a killed-virus vaccine, that replaced a live-virus vaccine.

Why isn't the government promoting research into developing a killed-virus MMR shot? If the shot provided slightly less immunity (as with the killed virus polio vaccine), that would be overshadowed by the fact that more parents would probably choose to have their children vaccinated.

[Why Syzygy]

154. I had an epiphany

this afternoon while reading an exchange on this thread about "how safe" do they need to be.

Simply, I think choice vs. mandatory has a lot to do with perceived safety. Americans are used to choices, and highly suspicious of government mandated programs of all types. It doesn't take much to plant a mustard seed of doubt and fear. There's also the secretive factor. If we feel someone is hiding something, we won't trust them. The radical right wing's reaction to Obama is a recent example.

There's lots more that could be said along this avenue. I'm not going to be able to pursue it tonight. I'm fighting off an overdose of chigger toxin, and not up to par just now. I wanted to get something written down so I don't forget later. :eyes:

I had a thought stream to mention the anthrax vaccine, but it has dried up at the moment. For now I'll just mention that my son has had it, as he is serving in America's wars. Hopefully that won't get a snark, but if so, it's really inconsequential. There needs to be a balance between real life emotional family issues and the detached laboratory, so-called "scientific" Big Brother. If people can't deal with that, it limits the potential for satisfaction on all sides. IOW, it changes nothing and nothing changes.

If I'm not making sense, it's at least partially due to the above mentioned anaphylactic reaction I'm having. I'm hoping to be able to bring the topic of homeopathy into the discussion at a later date, also. But it will be on my time table and not a response to bully demands.

[pnwmom]

157. I think your thoughts are well worth pursuing further.

I hope you feel better soon!