Misleading reports about autism data - Page 13 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-25-2012, 07:45 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

did you read the whole thing?

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

they absolutely address the lower standard of burden, BECAUSE:

Quote:
[In its formation...] The Court articulated the reason for this lower burden then that necessary in civil court "to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.52  

the other article was just a short thing based on this.

 

It also brings up the same point as Bernadine Healy, that the vax program is being protected at all costs and questions are going unanswered, and, no, certain aspects have not been sufficiently answered. 

Slmommy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-25-2012, 07:45 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not addressing a parent, I'm addressing a lawyer.  What is acceptable in one context is obviously not acceptable in the other.  I have never and will never responded to anyone who's claimed vaccine injury with anything other than "I'm very sorry for the pain your family has gone through." 

 

Interestingly she keeps comparing the vaccine court to a court of law, and never mentions that the standard of evidence in an actual court is much higher and these families would've stood even less of a chance of success there, whether they had a jury or not.  

 

There isn't even a serious discussion of any kind of legal issue in the decision, it's just whining and speculation.  If it was so unfair and they made the wrong decision, where's the science that proves it? If they so clearly made the wrong decision, stop whining you think you were treated unfairly and make the argument.  Where's the article explaining all the science and research the vaccine court ignored or didn't hear?  

 

She's very wounded that the Special masters demeaned the theories the petitioners offered.  How else does she expect scientists to respond to an argument that has no scientific validity?

 

 

What is the standard in the Vax court? If its a "preponderance of the evidence" (ie, "more likely than not" or 50.1% chance), then that is the same standard in Civil Court. In Criminal court the standard is Beyond a Reasonable doubt, which is extremely high. Clear and Convincing is used in some cases (paternity, juvenile delinquency, child custody, and some others).

 

I don't know the burden of proof in vax court, but its not likely to be "Reasonably Suspicion" which is incredibly low.

 

NM - the burden is "Preponderance of the Evidence" according to wikipedia. Similar to civil court, only the Court of Claims does not seat a jury.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Supersingle,

 

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr, pages 5-10, 9-10 specifically.

 

I can't copy and paste from this, everything I have quoted I've been typing out.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
In a civil court they would have to prove their child was injured and it was the vaccines makers fault. Here they only have to prove their child was injured as a result of the vaccine.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 08:56 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

The comparisons of infant mortality are completely invalid since those statistics are calculated differently from country to country.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:09 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Supersingle,

 

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr, pages 5-10, 9-10 specifically.

 

I can't copy and paste from this, everything I have quoted I've been typing out.

 

Thanks. Those are the elements of the claim, and are not the "burden" - what that means is that the petitioner (injured party) has to prove each of those elements by a preponderance of the evidence - which is a pretty low standard. I don't know why they define those elements as the burden, because the elements themselves do not define how strong the case has to be, or how likely it has to be that those occurred. (I'm an attorney - I've spent tons of time learning about and using different burdens of proof)

 See below:

 

Quote:

In further elucidating the evidentiary standard, they said, “This Court has interpreted the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard referred to in the Vaccine Act as one of proof by a simple preponderance, of ‘more probably than not’ causation.”  Courts often refer to this as 50% plus a feather.  But what happens in cases that are a “close call”?  The Althen Court addressed that in the material cited above from page 8 of the opinion, when they said that close calls should be resolved in favor of the injured claimants. 

 

What else is not required of Claimants under the NVICP?  Clearly, the Althen Court agreed with Knudsen in “explaining that ‘to require identification and proof of specific biological mechanisms would be inconsistent with the purpose and nature of the vaccine compensation program’…. the purpose of the Vaccine Act’s preponderance standard is to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.”  (Althen, at 8.)

 

The "feild bereft of complete and direct proof..." is how Preponderance of the Evidence is defined. It is why OJ Simpson was found liable in Civil Court, and yet "not guilty"in Criminal Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

In a civil court they would have to prove their child was injured and it was the vaccines makers fault. Here they only have to prove their child was injured as a result of the vaccine.

 

Well yes, but since the inception of the Court of Claims, individuals aren't allowed to sue in civil court if I remember right. All vaccine injury cases must be taken the court of claims.

 

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:18 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

Well yes, but since the inception of the Court of Claims, individuals aren't allowed to sue in civil court if I remember right. All vaccine injury cases must be taken the court of claims.

 

You remember right. 

 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:20 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Yes, you are allowed to sue vaccine makers if they are negligent, you are not allowed to sue them for a side effect that was not the result of something like a manufacturing defect, though.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yes, you are allowed to sue vaccine makers if they are negligent, you are not allowed to sue them for a side effect that was not the result of something like a manufacturing defect, though.

 


But negligence is an entirely different case theory.

 

Negligence you must prove:

Duty

Breach

Actual Causation

Proximate/legal causation and

Harm/injury

 

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:28 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The comparisons of infant mortality are completely invalid since those statistics are calculated differently from country to country.

 

so? that does not change the fact that US has more aggressive vax schedule than many other developed nations.

 

Honestly, this will go nowhere. statistics are defined different ways, diganoses subjective, criteria changed or subjective, biases on all sides, industry funded research, VICP award is not conclusive, study sizes too small or methodology someone disagrees with... vax schedule is continually added to, vaccines and ingredients changed, dates and ages changed, boosters added, etc etc etc

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:29 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
What's the alternative? If vaccine court didn't exist and you sued a vaccine manufacturer, what would you sue them for? That they caused your kids autism? Wouldn't you still have to prove that the vaccine actually caused it, they knew it, and they didn't warn you about it? Vs vaccine court you only have to prove the vaccine caused it.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:30 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Ok, the us has a more aggressive vax schedule. So what?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:33 AM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

 

That final point isn't "suddenly introduced" in the conclusion.  It's the result of this larger section that immediately precedes point 4 in your quote above:

 

 

 

 

What Offit and Gerber are doing here is pointing out the reasons why vaccination can be dismissed as a cause for autism while pointing out that the straight-up vaccinated vs. unvaccinated/delayed comparison that vaccine critics have sometimes called for is impossible to acquire in an ethical manner.

 

For a retrospective observational study on the issue, see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.full

On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The conclusion makes no sense unless someone was hypothesizing in the first place that vaccines cause autism because and only because they overwhelm the immune system... and that there would also be measurable differences between children receiving 6 and 10 vaccines in their first year in a very small sample of each.  It's illogical to say that if children receiving 6 vaccines in their first year have no fewer autism cases that children receiving 10 then that means vaccines don't cause autism.  What a leap!

 

Since the "overwhelming the immune system" thing doesn't quite make sense to me, I suppose I don't believe that arguing that point makes much of a point.  Taken by itself as a study of a narrowly focused topic there is nothing particularly wrong with it.  But when it is used to "prove" something much broader there is a loss of credibility.


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Ok, the us has a more aggressive vax schedule. So what?

 

I dont know... other nations have more del/sel schedules and yet not everyone has dropped dead from vpd, particularly cp, hep b at birth, hep a, flu...

 

maybe Sears type vax outlook should be more accepted? as opposed to this: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=offit&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

when will those with pro-vax outlook realize it would probably improve vax compliancy to at least treat some safety/reaction questions seriously? and allow parents greater flexibility in sel/del?? Pedis kicking kids out of practices and losing state exemption possibilities and saying the autism/vax possibly is shut closed does not help!

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:59 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here's some info about what you have to prove in vaccine court.
 

"To win a VICP award, the claimant does not need to prove everything that is required to hold a vaccine maker liable in a product liability lawsuit. But a causal connection must be shown. If medical records show that a child had one of several listed adverse effects within a short period after vaccination, the VICP presumes that it was caused by the vaccine (although the government can seek to prove otherwise). An advisory committee helps to amend the list of adverse effects as the consensus view changes with the availability of new studies. If families claim that a vaccine caused an adverse effect that is not on the list, the burden of proof rests with them." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

 

"In the VICP context, proof of causation does not need to be shown to the extent of what some might call scientific certainty. Rather, it suffices to prove causation according to the civil-law standard of “the preponderance of the evidence,” showing that causation is “more likely than not.” Although proving a mere possibility won't suffice, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not required." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

 

"To win an award, a claimant must show a causal connection; if medical records show a child has one of several listed adverse effects soon after vaccination, the assumption is that it was caused by the vaccine. The burden of proof is the civil-law preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, in other words a showing that causation was more likely than not. Denied claims can be pursued in civil courts, though this is rare." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court (yeah yeah yeah It's a Wiki link orngtongue.gif but it had the bit about suing in civil court which I thought was relevant)

 

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I can understand why it's frustrating for pediatricians. I can also understand why they wouldn't want to work with families that choose not to vaccinate. I think they should have that choice, just like you shoul have the choice to choose a doctor who listens too and is respectful of your concerns and questions.

I don't think changing the vax schedule would improve compliance, since you can, in reality, vaccinate your kid on any schedule you want. People who think that would help are probably already doing it. I think the biggest reason not to change ours is because research shows its safe and it provides maximum protection for our kids. Where's the research that shows the vax schedule in those other countries are safer or that there's a lower incidence of things like autism there?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:01 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Thanks for clarifying, Abby.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

Parents of autistic children who thought they saw a connection between autism and vaccines did a great job getting their observations in front of medical professionals for investigation.  The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism has been tested.  No evidence has been found to support this hypothesis.  The lack of evidence has been confirmed by multiple tests.  Now it's time to move on to new hypotheses. 

 

 

You are aware those 5,000 involved in omnibus didn't just make up some diagnosis themselves? There are experts and hcps backing them up. So which is it? VICP is subjective and incosistent or rigorous?

I don't believe that any of the previously awarded VICP cases involving encephalopathy and autism were further investigated by anyone. 

Just because Paul Offit says case closed, does not mean that other researchers and public health officials, nor parents, agree. the late Bernadine Healy and Helen Ratajczak are the ones I have bringing up most in this thread.

 

From what we discussed yesterday, it seems as though most of the federal research $ is moving on, so you need not worry about that yourself.

 

Lest anyone think that VICP is all wilynily where parents are easily awarded, heres a blip of interview from http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr with parents who won their cases.

 

 

 

Quote:

Question: Was Your Child’s Claim Resolved Fairly?

 

(a)    No, it was war. 148

(b)   DOJ attorneys were disrespectful and combative… The Compensation Program should be about compensation and not about defense of the vaccine program. 149

(c)    The attorney for the government was absolutely horrible. She was cold, insulting, and did whatever she could to keep us from being compensated. She pushed for C. to be put in a group home because that would be cheaper than allowing her to live with her family, and she argued against very basic home safety devices, like latches on cupboards, a fence for the yard, and a special swing where C. would not fall out when a seizure hit.150                                  (page 47)

 

 

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:13 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Ratajczac has nothing even close to the qualifications of someone like offit. Her theories are not biologically plausible and a joke.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:17 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Healy and ratajczac (sp) have nothing even close to the qualifications of someone like offit. They are largely laughed at in the scientific community, and their theories incredibly fringe and not considered plausible by very many of their fellow scientists.

 

ROTFLMAO.gifcause you said so? hahahaha, please support that claim

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:19 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Here's some info about what you have to prove in vaccine court.
 

"To win a VICP award, the claimant does not need to prove everything that is required to hold a vaccine maker liable in a product liability lawsuit. But a causal connection must be shown. If medical records show that a child had one of several listed adverse effects within a short period after vaccination, the VICP presumes that it was caused by the vaccine (although the government can seek to prove otherwise). An advisory committee helps to amend the list of adverse effects as the consensus view changes with the availability of new studies. If families claim that a vaccine caused an adverse effect that is not on the list, the burden of proof rests with them." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

 

"In the VICP context, proof of causation does not need to be shown to the extent of what some might call scientific certainty. Rather, it suffices to prove causation according to the civil-law standard of “the preponderance of the evidence,” showing that causation is “more likely than not.” Although proving a mere possibility won't suffice, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not required." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

 

"To win an award, a claimant must show a causal connection; if medical records show a child has one of several listed adverse effects soon after vaccination, the assumption is that it was caused by the vaccine. The burden of proof is the civil-law preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, in other words a showing that causation was more likely than not. Denied claims can be pursued in civil courts, though this is rare." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court (yeah yeah yeah It's a Wiki link orngtongue.gif but it had the bit about suing in civil court which I thought was relevant)

 

I believe as well the statute of limitations is 3 years after onset on symptoms and/or 2 years after death resulting from vaccination.

 

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:19 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I adjusted my statement, I think I hastily and unfairly lumped healy in with ratajczac. Which claim would you like me to justify? That she is laughed at or that her claims are not plausible? I think I already explained why they're not plausible.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:20 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't think changing the vax schedule would improve compliance, since you can, in reality, vaccinate your kid on any schedule you want. 

 

No, not in Mississippi or West Virginia. Nevermind that exemptions are not always well understood or explained to parents. 

I am not advocating changing official schedule, just more flexibility within system.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:22 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I adjusted my statement, I think I hastily and unfairly lumped healy in with ratajczac. Which claim would you like me to justify? That she is laughed at or that her claims are not plausible? I think I already explained why they're not plausible.

 

YOU did, but who are you? I would actually like to see any official dispute of her review of possibilities, particularly the dna one.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Check out the link to the chop vaccine education center I posted way back, their page on DNA will say something very similar to what I did. You won't find anyone "official" disputing ratajczac specifically because she doesn't have enough legitimacy to warrant it, but I can link you to some blogs that will give you the general tone with which her theories are regarded, if you like. Just don't be surprised when they're very anti-anti-vax, scientists types tend to be.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:35 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Check out the link to the chop vaccine education center I posted way back, their page on DNA will say something very similar to what I did. You won't find anyone "official" disputing ratajczac specifically because she doesn't have enough legitimacy to warrant it, but I can link you to some blogs that will give you the general tone with which her theories are regarded, if you like. Just don't be surprised when they're very anti-anti-vax, scientists types tend to be.

 

haha, no that's ok, im sure i can find extreme pro-vax blogs myself. Not too interested in blogs though. 

I'm not stating that THIS is the cause of autism, not in a million years, and neither is she. 

 

Unfortunately, there are some officials, researchers, and doctors who do not feel that enough study has been done. sorry. 

I agree with them.

You disagree. 

shrug.gif

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Ight, I agree with the majority of researchers who say enough is enough and it's time to move on.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:42 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't think changing the vax schedule would improve compliance, since you can, in reality, vaccinate your kid on any schedule you want. 

 

No, not in Mississippi or West Virginia. Nevermind that exemptions are not always well understood or explained to parents. 

I am not advocating changing official schedule, just more flexibility within system.


You have the option, even in those states, you just don't get to send your kid to public schools and put hundreds of other kids at risk.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


You have the option, even in those states, you just don't get to send your kid to public schools and put hundreds of other kids at risk.

 

I suppose that is true. You are faced with unnecessary financial/emotional burden of moving your family to another state or homeschooling... just because maybe you want to skip chicken pox vax... sounds fair.

 

...and let's not even start about putting hundreds of kids at risk... where's the mandatory quarantine for recently vaxed kids? Merck's varivax product insert says they shed for 6 weeks after vaccination and should be kept away from anyone immuno-compromised. and yeah, cp vax is causing cp infection, which is infecting people too. 

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:58 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

Unfortunately, there are some officials, researchers, and doctors who do not feel that enough study has been done. sorry. 

I agree with them.

You disagree. 

shrug.gif

 

Right now, with the methods we have now, there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.  If you want to ensure that we never, ever find the cause of autism, studying the vaccine/autism link over and over with the same methods will guarantee that we don't find evidence of whatever is actually causing autism.  If, on the other hand, you would like doctors to actually find out what causes autism, we need to stop spending money and time researching the vaccine/autism link and investigate more promising possibilities. 

 

This is going to sound harsh, but to me, right now, when people say "we need to keep looking in to the suspected link between vaccines and autism" what they mean is "I so detest vaccines that I insist that limited research resources be wasted attempting to prove the vaccine/autism theory despite multiple studies showing and confirming a lack of evidence because that is my favorite theory so it must be proven true, and that is more important to me than the fact that children with autism and their families continue to suffer from a condition that might be much more treatable, curable, or preventable if we figured out what caused it." 

 

There will always be dissent.  There is no evidence to support that dissent in this case.  Time for a new hypothesis. 

stik is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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