I am pissed! For 50 years the courts ruled that

[Luckyinlife]

SMOKING DID NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER......
This 'vaccine' court shit is the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Luckyinlife

SMOKING DID NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER......
This 'vaccine' court shit is the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you got it!

[carriebft]

I think the analogy fails. The science showed a strong link and the companies tried to cover it up. I don't think it went down thy way AOA claims it did; they seem to be saying that even the untainted science said tobacco was ok when that is just not true. here I think the court ruled but it ruled with science on its side as opposed to what happened with tobacco.

[Luckyinlife]

The OBVIOUS science to ME is when a perfectly NORMAL/HEALTHY, TALKING child walks into a doctors office, gets God only know how many poisonous chemicals injected into them and then CAN'T TALK THE NEXT DAY...HOW MORE OBVIOUS CAN YOU GET!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Sorry, this is not directed at anyone here, just pissed at this obvious BS and want to scream about it!!!)

[carriebft]

That was not even the situation in any of the cases, not even close.

[Luckyinlife]

Hi carrie
Not really talking about the cases that they didn't 'pick'. Just throwing things around that are infuriating to me

[jeliphish]

Originally Posted by Luckyinlife

The OBVIOUS science to ME is when a perfectly NORMAL/HEALTHY, TALKING child walks into a doctors office, gets God only know how many poisonous chemicals injected into them and then CAN'T TALK THE NEXT DAY...HOW MORE OBVIOUS CAN YOU GET!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Sorry, this is not directed at anyone here, just pissed at this obvious BS and want to scream about it!!!)

But the court also looks at all of the children who do not have a reaction to a vaccine. The burden of proof is on the families who have been affected and until science puts a DIRECT link -it's going to be hard to prove. They are going to say, "ok, if the vaccine is what DIRECTLY caused this, how come this other 2 year old is walking around happy and smiling with no reactions or developmental delays?" The children got the same shot from the same lot on the same day at the same doctors. This disproves a direct link - a vaccine is not going to always affect a child...therefore it makes it impossible to make an obvious scientific link.
The cigarette companies covered up info....it's not exactly the same.

BTW it's not that I don't agree with you - I know what you mean it's just impossible to link these things if they are not happening to all children

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Luckyinlife

The OBVIOUS science to ME is when a perfectly NORMAL/HEALTHY, TALKING child walks into a doctors office, gets God only know how many poisonous chemicals injected into them and then CAN'T TALK THE NEXT DAY...HOW MORE OBVIOUS CAN YOU GET!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's good to get fired up about some things. Fired up people help make changes in the world.

I've mentioned before the absolute genius of vaccine research. First of all, don't really do any biological research studies to find out what people are accusing you of. If you do, make sure you do something like the Hornig study where only a handful of children are looked at, and then come up with all kinds of ways to twist the outcome. Such as assuming persistant measles must be involved, or ignore MV found in the gut because one was a control (that had been vaccinated) or just ignoring the very simple fact that the children in the study had been vaccinated, had GI problems and many had autism.

The real genius however is in finding some researchers who you pay a lot of money to, who have their professional status, house payments, children's college funds, grocery money on the line, to determine your product is safe. Then you can ignore the tens of thousands of parents who are saying almost the exact same thing. Their children were doing very well, got some vaccines, immediately got very sick, slowly regressed after that and now are a shell of what they once were. Then the only people who get to have an opinion that matters are the paid researchers. It's genius. Forget what the actual eye witnesses have to say. It's the experts that matter.

Then you can set up a federal court to determine if a federal department is guilty of maiming thousands of innocent children. On top of that, the federal government gets to choose one person to decide the outcome of the case. That one person (it was actually 3, but pretty much one per case) gets to decide which evidence is allowed in court. No jury of peers, no discovery, and no independent determination. It's genius.

[Scattershoot]

"ok, if the vaccine is what DIRECTLY caused this, how come this other 2 year old is walking around happy and smiling with no reactions or developmental delays?" The children got the same shot from the same lot on the same day at the same doctors.

Did everyone who took Vioxx have a heart attack and die? They all took the same medicine. Since they did not all die, does that mean Vioxx was safe?

[willowsmom]

Not everyone who smokes gets sick either, but pretty much everyone agrees that smoking is dangerous. And while it's my daughter's choice whether or not to smoke when she is of age, I'm hoping she chooses not to - by making an educated decision.

My opinion on vaccines is similar. Not everyone agrees that they are dangerous, of course... but that potential is certainly there. Not every child may get sick from vaccines...but does that mean we should just shoot up the whole population as an experiment on "What works and What doesn't"?

Edited to add: I guess I'm not really "replying" to anyone in particular... just throwing some of my thoughts into the mix. lol

[Scattershoot]

Double post

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

Did everyone who took Vioxx have a heart attack and die? They all took the same medicine. Since they did not all die, does that mean Vioxx was safe?

Since peanut butter can cause some people to go into anaphalctic shock and die, but it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else, does this mean that peanut butter is safe?

[jeliphish]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

Did everyone who took Vioxx have a heart attack and die? They all took the same medicine. Since they did not all die, does that mean Vioxx was safe?

I didn't make the argument of whether it was safe or not....I just simply said that making a direct cause/effect relationship is difficult when there are children who get all their vaccines on time and nothing "bad" or reactive ever happens. It's not that I don't agree- I delay and selected with DD and will not be vaccinating my next, but looking at it from a legal standpoint some of the vaccine cases haven't met the burden of proof. Sure, there have been civil, monetary settlements in the vioxx cases, but not all have met their burden of proof either and were awarded nothing even when they did have a heart attack after taking it. Same with some of the vaccine cases....there were other issues at play. It's just going to take a lot more solid evidence to prove a direct link

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by anewmama

Since peanut butter can cause some people to go into anaphalctic shock and die, but it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else, does this mean that peanut butter is safe?

You are actually making my point.

The problem is that it doesn't rule it out. What is happening is that the pro-vax crowd is trying to rule it out completely. They are saying, "See, we told you vaccines don't cause autism." That is the problem. They assume after a half-baked trial and a half-baked attempt at trying to see if their product was to blame that the issue is closed.

The last thing the vaccine movement wants is for autism to make it to the list of vaccine induced conditions. Were talking millions of claims and trillions of dollars and a huge p.r. problem. Massive.

[aniT]

Originally Posted by jeliphish

But the court also looks at all of the children who do not have a reaction to a vaccine. The burden of proof is on the families who have been affected and until science puts a DIRECT link -it's going to be hard to prove. They are going to say, "ok, if the vaccine is what DIRECTLY caused this, how come this other 2 year old is walking around happy and smiling with no reactions or developmental delays?" The children got the same shot from the same lot on the same day at the same doctors. This disproves a direct link - a vaccine is not going to always affect a child...therefore it makes it impossible to make an obvious scientific link.
The cigarette companies covered up info....it's not exactly the same.

BTW it's not that I don't agree with you - I know what you mean it's just impossible to link these things if they are not happening to all children

WTF.. this is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. (not meaning you directly, just the system that initiated something so stupid.)

The burden should be on the VACCINE companies to PROVE that their product is safe BEFORE they inject children with it. It should not the responsibility of effected families to prove that they are NOT safe after their child was irreparably harmed by it. :

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by jeliphish

The burden of proof is on the families who have been affected and until science puts a DIRECT link -it's going to be hard to prove.

This is my biggest pet peeve. Why is the burden of proof on an innocent child and not the vaccines? Our justice system is based on the right of an individual to be innocent until proven guilty but for some reason when it comes to vaccines the individual bears the burden of proof.

As far as tobacco goes - yes, the court case was based on the cover up but the fact remains that *research* assured us for decades that cigarette smoking was safe only to find out it was completely untrue. Research with funding conflicts of interest and political (financial) agendas is one of the huge problems with our scientific/medical community.

[aniT]

Originally Posted by anewmama

Since peanut butter can cause some people to go into anaphalctic shock and die, but it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else, does this mean that peanut butter is safe?

Peanut butter did not used to cause some people to go into anaphalatic shock and die though. This is relatively new. I had NEVER EVER IN MY LIFE heard of anyone being allergic to peanut butter until the 90's. And while I have changed computers so many times I no longer have links saved.. when I did my initial research into vaccines some years ago.. I found that some vaccines are made with peanut oil. Hrm... could the vaccines be causing these allergies?

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by jeliphish

But the court also looks at all of the children who do not have a reaction to a vaccine. The burden of proof is on the families who have been affected and until science puts a DIRECT link -it's going to be hard to prove. They are going to say, "ok, if the vaccine is what DIRECTLY caused this, how come this other 2 year old is walking around happy and smiling with no reactions or developmental delays?" The children got the same shot from the same lot on the same day at the same doctors. This disproves a direct link - a vaccine is not going to always affect a child...therefore it makes it impossible to make an obvious scientific link.
The cigarette companies covered up info....it's not exactly the same.

BTW it's not that I don't agree with you - I know what you mean it's just impossible to link these things if they are not happening to all children

Agreed. It's quite convenient for them actually. The obvious answer to why one child reacts to a vaccine and the next one doesn't has to do with the fact that no 2 children are the same. so how can "they" state that there is no link. Just because 1 child reacts and the next one doesn't? They do not take into consideration that the children could be very different on many levels. That is why many protest the one size fits all approach of the CDC

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by willowsmom

Not everyone who smokes gets sick either, but pretty much everyone agrees that smoking is dangerous. And while it's my daughter's choice whether or not to smoke when she is of age, I'm hoping she chooses not to - by making an educated decision.

My opinion on vaccines is similar. Not everyone agrees that they are dangerous, of course... but that potential is certainly there. Not every child may get sick from vaccines...but does that mean we should just shoot up the whole population as an experiment on "What works and What doesn't"?

Edited to add: I guess I'm not really "replying" to anyone in particular... just throwing some of my thoughts into the mix. lol

Pretty much what I was thinking.
We do not know who is at risk and who is not. Not everyone who smokes dies of cancer.

[jeliphish]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

This is my biggest pet peeve. Why is the burden of proof on an innocent child and not the vaccines? Our justice system is based on the right of an individual to be innocent until proven guilty but for some reason when it comes to vaccines the individual bears the burden of proof.

Well it's just how the system is set up and in all cases the "prosecution" has the burden of proof. A man is arrested for rape, but he is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of presenting evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this man raped this woman. Even if the man is guilty but the prosecution fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - the man can be found innocent, because the prosecution didn't meet it's burden of proof. IN MOST CASES, how our legal system is set up does a good job at protecting innocent people who are charged with crimes they didn't commit. Unfortunately, bad guys sometimes win. But can you imagine what it would be like if it was the other way around like it is in some "not so nice" countries?

We, as parents, are essentially the prosecution in these cases. We are accusing these companies of a "crime" and therefore it is our burden to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that their vaccine has caused this. Vaccine companies have protected themselves in some cases by recalling some lots of vaccines that were found to cause a more frequent reactions than the norm...whatever their mean/median/mode is for determining the "normal" amount of vaccine reactions. "insert and read the Ford Pinto conspiracy here" for how many deaths a company thinks they can justify. (This story will make you mad btw). I remember when it was time on our delayed schedule to get DD's DTAP and the nurse advised me that Merck had had a large recall of certain lots because it was making a large number of children have seizures. DD's pedi's office didn't carry that lot but they pulled the vax anyway.