http://www.vaccinationnews.com/20110921TheAttemptedHijackingGottsteinSThe Attempted Hijacking of “Science” by the Ultra Pro-Vaccine Crowd
by Sandy Gottstein
September 21, 2011 Those who unquestioningly support and promote vaccination while at the same time trivializing vaccine safety concerns have tried to co-opt science as their own private fiefdom.
But is that legitimate? And what is science, really? Is it some clear-cut, static system with hard results? Or is it an ongoing process, and one that depends on asking the right questions in the right way? Is the pro-vaccine camp right that only they understand and properly use science and its methods? Or do such notions suggest a lack of understanding about science, including its strengths and limitations, and/or a propaganda effort (e.g., by inserting the word “science” in the title of your blog) designed to camouflage the truth?
Among the varied definitions of science are the following:
<...>
Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . . As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999)
So what are the bases of the anti-vaccine-safety camp’s assertions?
First, their declarations of vaccine safety are almost entirely based on industry-funded or influenced “science”. For them, the indisputable potential for conflict of interest to result in compromised scientific research apparently has no relevance to vaccines. While the pro-vaccine camp has made a dogma out of trivializing vaccine-safety concerns, in fact, such tarnished “science” does not disprove evidence of vaccine harm. The unreservedly pro-vaccine camp’s willingness to embrace tainted research raises more questions than it answers.
Second, their claims are based on rejecting contrary evidence, including observations of temporally- related adverse vaccine events, even those that occur within minutes or hours. It is absurd to assume that a temporally-related event cannot be causally related. In fact, under normal circumstances, it would be the first thing suspected. But vaccines are not viewed in the “normal” way.
Of course a temporal relationship alone does not alone prove anything...
<...>
Fourth, there is the disgraceful rejection of nearly all the evidence published in journals that supports the notion that vaccines may be causing harm. This in spite of the high hurdle such studies must surmount, given heavy funding of the journals by vaccine manufacturers , difficulty getting non-industry funding, and conflicts of interest among many of the “peers” reviewing those studies. All of this makes it extremely difficult to get a fair hearing and published.
One stark example of the rejection of published studies that challenge so-called “expert” vaccine proclamations involves thimerosal as a possible cause of autism and/or other vaccine harm. The ultra pro-vaccine crowd wants us to believe the issue has been settled, even though science is almost never “settled”. And even though there are at least 90 journal articles (
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/evidence-thimerosal-risk and
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/evidence-thimerosal-risk-page-2 ) that clearly suggest otherwise. (They also incorrectly insist that thimerosal has been completely removed from childhood vaccines (
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1 ), totally ignoring the fact that many of the flu vaccines now given to children contain it, while other vaccines contain “trace amounts”, and/or that whatever amount is still left is surely not a problem. But that is another story.)
Fifth, given that most funding comes from industry, few researchers who question vaccinations receive the necessary funding. Those who support vaccination and minimize vaccine risks would have us believe the consequent absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not.
Ignoring, dismissing and/or failing to properly study that which contradicts the status quo may be a great way to run a business, but it is no way to conduct science. The anti-vaccine-safety crowd has some nerve making the unscientific claim that the vaccine-safety issue has been settled. It is high time for the public to stop falling for such self-serving, deceptive pronouncements.
More
information here:
http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/the-evidence-shows-that-vaccines-cause-mental-retardationElizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Posted on: 09-19-2011 Posted in: Areas of Law, Vaccine Law<...>
While her (Rep. Bachmann's) claims may have missed the mark and utilized imprecise terms, perhaps the claim that vaccines can cause “mental retardation” is not so irresponsible, after careful examination. There have been thousands of reports of adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine. While there is no evidence that the HPV vaccine causes “mental retardation” there is evidence that it causes neurological problems, brain injury and associated cognitive problems.<2> There is evidence, as we document below, that vaccines can and do cause “mental retardation.” The Federal government has itself acknowledged that vaccines can, in some cases, cause “mental retardation.”
<...>
“Mental retardation” is not a condition that is likely to occur in an individual who has reached an advanced age without previous evidence of cognitive or learning problems. Rather, it is likely that cognitive deficits afflict some individuals who have been injured by the Gardasil vaccine, and these have been documented. <8>
<...>
On reviewing the most recent controversy, we conducted a preliminary examination of the legal literature reporting whether vaccines can cause “mental retardation,” something which pundits rebutting Rep. Bachmann seem very sure about. We easily found clear examples of reported cases in the legal literature showing that there has existed credible evidence, going back 50 years, that vaccines have had a causal relationship with “mental retardation”. While the legal process employs standards that are different from a focused scientific inquiry, the cases we found provide support for the claim— based on the evidence provided by medical doctors— that vaccines have, indeed, caused “mental retardation.”
In presenting what we have found, we acknowledge that our data raises more questions than it resolves. But this is precisely the point. “Science” cannot point to studies showing that vaccines are completely safe. To the contrary, credible information supported by medical experts, shows that vaccines can cause serious neurological injuries such as, or similar to, “mental retardation.” To date, “Science” has not revealed the precise mechanism by which such injuries occur. A recent Institute of Medicine review of specific issues related to the safety of selected vaccines reported that, for most questions regarding vaccine safety, scientific investigation is incomplete and inconclusive.<11>
We have cited four cases below, selected from many that are easily located, that clearly show the connection between vaccine injury and “mental retardation”. Notably, the decisions finding that vaccine injury caused “mental retardation” are supported by expert medical testimony.
Contrary to concerted recent claims in the media, it has long been understood that vaccine injury can result in permanent neurological damage. To the specific point regarding “mental retardation” and vaccines raised by Rep. Bachmann, the evidence dates back 50 years.
<...>
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2005/12/liz-birt-1956-2005.htmlLiz Birt Tribute
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
