Experts concerned about vaccination backlash - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 11:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...t-vaccine.html

The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9719, Pages 970 – 971, 20 March 2010


Quote:
Offit suggests one way to raise vaccination rates is to make it harder for people not to get themselves or their children vaccinated. This could mean, for example, attending educational classes that teach the public what the safety profiles of different vaccines are, before they are allowed to opt out of vaccination. “You have to convince people that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice; it’s just a choice to take a different risk.”
Is he for real?? Does he honestly think those of us who have put in the time to research this topic really think that not vaxing is risk free. And those classes would be filled with pro vax porpaganda, not the facts and the real risks.

Quote:
anti-vaccination messages have partly been responsible for the poor uptake of the H1N1 vaccine
GOOD!!!!

Quote:
Public-health messages should be simple, honest and straightforward
...what a joke!

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 12:50 PM
 
Gladiolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Their message was simply: “vaccines are the devil”.

That's what they thought we were saying - that's what they heard?!? I don't think that's ever crossed my mind when rejecting vaccines - especially H1N1!
And why do they think we don't look at the science and that science isn't on our side? They think we're the ones with the crazy scare-tactics? Oh... more of the same, they're either just not listening to us anti-vaxers or they're getting the message but changing it for the mainstream public.
Gladiolus is offline  
#3 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 01:34 PM
 
Sileree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh a class? Is this a class you have to sit through silently? If not, I'd love it. I'd be the annoying student who asks impertinent questions and brings studies to quote from that shoot holes through the usual nonsense propaganda. It'd be awesome to watch them flounder.

These are the sorts of things I'd ask:
- Can you talk about this study which shows that injected pertussis toxins induce susceptibility to invasive Hib?
- Can you talk about serotype replacement for bacterial vaccines?
- Can you talk about this study which shows measles virus has been found in the nose of a recently vaccinated child, and how this relates to herd immunity?
- Can you talk about this statement from the IOM that vaccines really have not done much to reduce mortality from diseases compared to other things like sanitation?
- Can you talk about this study that shows that diphtheria is not a contagious disease in modern society?
- Can you talk about the Cochrane Collaboration review which states flu vaccines are nearly useless?

And on and on.

intactivist.gif  ribbonpb.gif RN student, bellycast.gif birth doula since 2006
Sileree is offline  
#4 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 01:56 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladiolus View Post

Oh... more of the same, they're either just not listening to us anti-vaxers or they're getting the message but changing it for the mainstream public.
I think the message isn't so much to change non vaxer's minds, but more to make the rest of the world think non vaxer's are nuts and dangerous - to discredit us. If the mainsteam can be convinced that we are all crazy, Pharma can keep their vaccine uptake high.

They don't have to get us to vaccinate, they just have to keep everyone from listening to us.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#5 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 06:15 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
“You have to convince people that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice; it’s just a choice to take a different risk.”
We need a class for this?


sigh.
Arduinna is offline  
#6 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 08:13 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
“You have to convince people that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice; it’s just a choice to take a different risk.”
Uh... our side has been saying that for years


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#7 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 11:08 PM
 
claddaghmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A class, eh? Boy that would be the day. I'd probably be arrested for making a scene haha.

Mama to expecting Babe 2
claddaghmom is offline  
#8 of 35 Old 03-22-2010, 11:38 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,924
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Who's gonna make me go?

This kind of thing gives me the heebie jeebies...

"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#9 of 35 Old 03-23-2010, 11:52 AM
 
SunshineJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In transition
Posts: 1,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post
Uh... our side has been saying that for years
EXACTLY! And thank you very much Mr. Offit for recognizing that it IS a choice we make (though that may not have been his intent I'm sure!). I, too would love to take a class, other than the fact that would mean my family had been noticed and was on the radar so to speak.

ETA: And the whole thing about the H1N1? Even some of the most pro-vax people I know of didn't get that one because they didn't see a need for it. Had it been available earlier, I'm sure many would have, but by the time it got here people had either already had it or just weren't afraid of it any longer. You really can't blame the lack of success of that one solely on the anti-vaxxing population!
SunshineJ is offline  
#10 of 35 Old 03-23-2010, 01:06 PM
 
nicolebeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
They don't have to get us to vaccinate, they just have to keep everyone from listening to us.
Exactly!
nicolebeth is offline  
#11 of 35 Old 03-24-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
So by Offit's proposal, if you choose to go against what your government wants you to do, you are sentenced to a mandatory re-education program. Does anybody here know how to do channeling? I'd love to hear what George Orwell has to say about this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#12 of 35 Old 03-24-2010, 11:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
So by Offit's proposal, if you choose to go against what your government wants you to do, you are sentenced to a mandatory re-education program. Does anybody here know how to do channeling? I'd love to hear what George Orwell has to say about this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#13 of 35 Old 03-24-2010, 01:24 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Speaking of classes, you know the CDC did run a vax education class in southern Oregon a year or two ago IIRC. from what I read 'twas interesting LOL
Arduinna is offline  
#14 of 35 Old 03-24-2010, 06:23 PM
 
mamadelbosque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If anyone can explain to me why it is that vaccine manufacturers need immunity, and/or what exactly their insentive is to make sure their products are safe since they HAVE immunity, I'll consider vaxing. Untill you can do that, I won't even consider it. Currently, they just have zero insentive to make sure their products are safe. Zero. So why exactly should I trust them??
mamadelbosque is offline  
#15 of 35 Old 03-26-2010, 02:24 PM
 
BarnMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What a joke.

Anyone have the numbers for that "measles epidemic?"

It's a shame that people like this get air time on major news stations.
BarnMomma is offline  
#16 of 35 Old 03-26-2010, 03:00 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadelbosque View Post
If anyone can explain to me why it is that vaccine manufacturers need immunity, and/or what exactly their insentive is to make sure their products are safe since they HAVE immunity, I'll consider vaxing. Untill you can do that, I won't even consider it. Currently, they just have zero insentive to make sure their products are safe. Zero. So why exactly should I trust them??
I think the theory is that if they didn't have immunity, they'd have to buy insurance, and they would have to charge a lot more for the vaccines, rendering them unaffordable to most people. Nobody in the medical field does a good job because of a fear of lawsuits. They just buy insurance. If they are responsible people, they act responsibly, and if they aren't, they don't. The incentive to do a good job (besides, of course, morality and ethics) is the same as anyone else--their careers and the future of their companies are at stake.

I'm not trying to get you to vax, and I really don't care whether you do. I just think your primary concern should be the safety of your children rather than whether you can sue if something goes wrong.
no5no5 is offline  
#17 of 35 Old 03-26-2010, 05:09 PM
 
SunshineJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In transition
Posts: 1,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
So by Offit's proposal, if you choose to go against what your government wants you to do, you are sentenced to a mandatory re-education program. Does anybody here know how to do channeling? I'd love to hear what George Orwell has to say about this.
Now I may be wrong, and to be honest I totally suck at history, but I'm thinking this was done by Stalin? Hitler? Someone "really bad" who had the whole re-education camps (on something other than vaccines of course) and such. I can't recall of course the details, but I do recall studying it at one time.
SunshineJ is offline  
#18 of 35 Old 03-26-2010, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
I think the theory is that if they didn't have immunity, they'd have to buy insurance, and they would have to charge a lot more for the vaccines, rendering them unaffordable to most people. Nobody in the medical field does a good job because of a fear of lawsuits. They just buy insurance. If they are responsible people, they act responsibly, and if they aren't, they don't. The incentive to do a good job (besides, of course, morality and ethics) is the same as anyone else--their careers and the future of their companies are at stake.

I'm not trying to get you to vax, and I really don't care whether you do. I just think your primary concern should be the safety of your children rather than whether you can sue if something goes wrong.
No it actually had nothing to do with needing insurance and making vaccines unaffordable for people. What was happening before 1986 is that people were suing and rightly so after their children where horribly damaged from a vaccine and the manufacturers were paying so much out in damages that they threatened to stop making the vaccines at all. Now God forbid there would be no vaccines, so they created the national injury compensation law in 1986. It had to do with the bottom line $$$$.for the companies and the law was suppposed to actually create a place where families would have an easier time getting compensated, but it has not turned out that way at all. I rec you read this: http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensat...ineinjury.aspx

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#19 of 35 Old 03-26-2010, 08:00 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
No it actually had nothing to do with needing insurance and making vaccines unaffordable for people. What was happening before 1986 is that people were suing and rightly so after their children where horribly damaged from a vaccine and the manufacturers were paying so much out in damages that they threatened to stop making the vaccines at all.
Well, okay, but it's the same principle. If there's liability but no insurance, people don't take that big of a risk unless there's a really big payoff. Regardless of what you believe, the people who passed the law did it because they believed that a higher cost or a break in the vaccine supply would be a national health risk. There's nothing nefarious about that motivation.
no5no5 is offline  
#20 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 12:45 AM
 
anechka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineJ View Post
Now I may be wrong, and to be honest I totally suck at history, but I'm thinking this was done by Stalin? Hitler? Someone "really bad" who had the whole re-education camps (on something other than vaccines of course) and such. I can't recall of course the details, but I do recall studying it at one time.
The so-called "re-education camps" were first introduced by the chairman Mao during the times of the Cultural Revolution.
anechka is offline  
#21 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 12:22 PM
 
SunshineJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In transition
Posts: 1,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anechka View Post
The so-called "re-education camps" were first introduced by the chairman Mao during the times of the Cultural Revolution.
I told you my history sucked I just remembered that I'd heard of it before.
SunshineJ is offline  
#22 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 01:19 PM
 
mamadelbosque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, I know why they got immunity. I just think its totally, completely wrong that they did. Pharmacutical companies don't have immunity for all the new drugs they come out with, and they occasionally get sued and loose billions when one of their products hurst people, as they should. Can you imagine what would happen if we gave drug manufacturers immunity in order to "protect" them from lawsuits?? Because thats what we did with vaccines. They have ZERO risk when they come up with a new vaccine. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. So, wheres their incentive to make sure their product is safe?

My fear is for the safety of my children. And I just have zero faith in an industry that carries zero risk if their product hurts my children. No other industry in this country has immunity from lawsuits if their product hurts people. Why are vaccines so special?
mamadelbosque is offline  
#23 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 01:28 PM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
Well, okay, but it's the same principle. If there's liability but no insurance, people don't take that big of a risk unless there's a really big payoff. Regardless of what you believe, the people who passed the law did it because they believed that a higher cost or a break in the vaccine supply would be a national health risk. There's nothing nefarious about that motivation.
I feel like some of the motivation is suspect. There is no other product in this country where manufacturers are given a "get out of jail free" card if their product causes harm to an individual (or many many many individuals). All that happened was the government kept on the market a HUGE money making product and gave them no liability should something go wrong. And the process of proving damages is so impossibly difficult that very few people have been able to prove and collect damages.

If people were given the same process for vaccine injuries that they give to all other product liability, the process would be quite straight-forward, and the burden would be "more likely than not". Since the product liability laws were basically thrown out the window for vaccines, I cannot agree that the motivation was pure. There was certainly a lot of thought that went into how to keep a product on the market, while completely limiting any liability for it.

How much money do vaccine companies make each year? How much money is paid into taxes based on those sales? How many people directly and indirectly profiting from the sales of vaccines are on the decision making panels that sway the CDC? I've looked into these questions and more, and I do not reach the same conclusion that you do. I think the motivation that goes into the vaccine schedule and protection is quite suspect.
ammiga is offline  
#24 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 03:33 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Tort reform is not limited to the vaccine industry. I can't imagine where you got that idea. And it certainly does not remove all risk from the people who make vaccines. That's just absurd. In addition to the financial risk, which remains huge despite limited tort liability, vaccine manufacturers face criminal liability if they act with criminal negligence. Sure, they make lots of money. They also spend lots of money. It's a huge industry. That doesn't mean that the legislators who passed the bill didn't have the best interests of the country at heart.

While it may be true that it is difficult to prove an injury in the current system, it is also difficult to sue successfully under standard product liability law. In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product. It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.
no5no5 is offline  
#25 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 04:12 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product.
The current case going before the SCOTUS deals with the fact that there was a safer way to produce the vaccine that allegedly caused the injury, if that's where this conversation is ultimately going.

Quote:
It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.
The scientific community has repeatedly stated that the side effects listed on monographs and circulars are not evidence that they were caused by the vaccine. Anyone that has ever tried to use a package insert as evidence of injury has failed. In a civil tort, vaccine makers are subject to rules that simply do NOT apply in vaccine court. Notably, discovery. Drug makers have repeatedly lost their a$$e$ when forced to produce information and data regarding their products when it has been alleged that said product has harmed or killed... because in those cases, it has been demonstrated that the drug companies knew about the risks, and did NOT disclose them.

The bean counters successfully demonstrated to their board members that by the time the public figures out (via rightful prosecution and actually having to face the judicial system) that product x increases the risk of disease x by its use, they have already made billions of dollars. What's coughing up a few million to an injured person, or a surviving family? A drop in the bucket.
an_domhan is offline  
#26 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 10:01 PM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
Tort reform is not limited to the vaccine industry. I can't imagine where you got that idea. And it certainly does not remove all risk from the people who make vaccines. That's just absurd. In addition to the financial risk, which remains huge despite limited tort liability, vaccine manufacturers face criminal liability if they act with criminal negligence. Sure, they make lots of money. They also spend lots of money. It's a huge industry. That doesn't mean that the legislators who passed the bill didn't have the best interests of the country at heart.

While it may be true that it is difficult to prove an injury in the current system, it is also difficult to sue successfully under standard product liability law. In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product. It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.
I didn't say that tort reform was limited to the vaccine industry. But the extent to which it has been taken and the immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers granted by the government is limited to the vaccine industry.

I think that some of the legislators who helped to limit the vaccine industry's liability did have the country's best interest at heart. But I think that they are woefully misled, answering to their under-informed constituents (for the most part), and receive a ton of pressure from lobbyists.

Of course you need to prove that a product caused the injury that you are trying to claim in a product liability case and not just that you were injured. But the standard that needs to be met is that it is more likely than not that the product caused the injury. That is a landslide away from what parents of vaccine injured children need to prove. And not only are they taking on the vaccine industry, they are also fighting all sorts of immunities and the government. It is nearly an impossible battle. Product liability for other products is not as easy walking into small claims court, but it is a much more even handed battle.

And it isn't as simple as saying that the injury needs to be caused by a defect in the product. There are other ways that a company can be held liable for injuries caused by their product, many of which would be applicable to vaccines, but that process was taken away.
ammiga is offline  
#27 of 35 Old 03-28-2010, 11:03 PM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just to be perfectly clear, I am not arguing that we should have limited liability for vaccine manufacturers. I entered this discussion to provide an answer to what appeared to me to be a genuinely confused person, seeking to understand the reason limited liability exists. Clearly I was mistaken.

But whether tort reform in the context of vaccine manufacture is a good idea is not something I know enough about to decide. I do know enough about tort reform in general to believe that in some cases it is a very good thing. And I don't think that it is fair to assume that those who have sought to apply it to the vaccine industry have done so as part of some sort of evil conspiracy to make money and poison our children.

But to address the issue of a product liability lawsuit (something I know a bit more about), I can say that it is necessary to prove that your injury was caused by a defect in the product. No, it's not simple, but yes, it is necessary. It's often very, very difficult. It's certainly not as easy as proving that there is a safer alternative.
no5no5 is offline  
#28 of 35 Old 03-29-2010, 01:09 AM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
JAnd I don't think that it is fair to assume that those who have sought to apply it to the vaccine industry have done so as part of some sort of evil conspiracy to make money and poison our children.
I don't think reasonable people think this.

Quote:
I can say that it is necessary to prove that your injury was caused by a defect in the product. No, it's not simple, but yes, it is necessary. It's often very, very difficult. It's certainly not as easy as proving that there is a safer alternative.
I didn't mean to imply that just proving there was a safer alternative was all that was necessary. My point regarding Bruesewitz, is that it will be necessary to subject Wyeth to appropriate civil procedures (discovery) in order to determine whether or not they were negligent. Absent a handful epidemiological studies, a safe level of thimerosal exposure in humans hasn't been established.
an_domhan is offline  
#29 of 35 Old 03-29-2010, 02:09 AM
 
no5no5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
I don't think reasonable people think this.
I've known plenty of seemingly reasonable people who've believed completely unreasonable things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
I didn't mean to imply that just proving there was a safer alternative was all that was necessary. My point regarding Bruesewitz, is that it will be necessary to subject Wyeth to appropriate civil procedures (discovery) in order to determine whether or not they were negligent. Absent a handful epidemiological studies, a safe level of thimerosal exposure in humans hasn't been established.
There hasn't been discovery in Bruesewitz? I'm reading the COA opinion, and it sounds as if there was discovery. Also, I'm not sure it's about thimerosal. It seems that the claim is that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine caused the injury. Am I missing something?
no5no5 is offline  
#30 of 35 Old 03-29-2010, 03:51 AM
 
newmum35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,087
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think we should turn the tables on them and instead of having people hastily sign their initials on a paper they probably haven't even read, prior to administering vaccine, they should be required to attend vaccine class to learn more about each and every disease they are planning on getting a vaccine for, how mild or severe it usually is, and what the risks and benefits of getting that disease are. (poor choice of wording here, what I mean is for example in addition to lifelong and permanent immunity is getting a particular illness at a given age being much less risky - chickenpox for example) And of course, the risks of the vaccine including disability and death. Let the ones who choose the vaccine have to take the class. That makes more sense does it not?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
newmum35 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off