[teacozy]

<p>This was posted on the Moms Who Vax blog and I thought I would share it.  I know I've heard the claim that " Even the supreme court has said vaccines are unavoidably unsafe!" being used by some as a some sort of proof that vaccines are dangerous and this post explains what was actually said and what was meant by what was said. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);text-align:justify;">Those of us engaged in vaccine-related discussions online often hear vaccine critics claim the Supreme Court has declared vaccines “unavoidably unsafe” and thus incredibly dangerous. The critics are doubly wrong. First, the Supreme Court has said no such thing. Second, in the law’s eyes, an unavoidably unsafe product is not a “super-dangerous” product.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);text-align:justify;">  </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);text-align:justify;">Quite the opposite, an unavoidably unsafe product is a product whose tremendous benefits justify the reasonable risks it poses." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html" target="_blank">http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do you guys think?  I'm sure someone else can summarize it better than I can for those who don't have the time to read the whole blog post  </p>

 

[erigeron]

<p>This hits along the same lines as 2 things that drive me bonkers: </p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. There is no way to "prove something safe" because that really means proving that it does not cause any damage, and you cannot scientifically prove a negative. That's how scientific research works, as anyone who has studied it is well aware and can attest. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. The standards used to evaluate causality and proof legally versus scientifically are fundamentally different, and a judge has legal training rather than medical training and is evaluating on the legal standards, so if a court says vaccines caused XYZ it doesn't necessarily mean they did (or, conversely, if they say vaccines didn't cause XYZ it doesn't mean that they might not have). Again, this is well known to anybody who has studied science or medicine. It should be fairly evident even to those who have studied neither, unless you'd really rather see a judge than a doctor to treat your cancer/broken leg/pneumonia/whatever.</p>

 

[teacozy]

<p>What a coincidence. I happened to pop over at ageofautism and see this quote " Since the 1980s, thousands of children have suffered irreparable injuries or death from federally recommended vaccines. Vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and yet the federal government recommends that children receive 70 doses before age 18. " <img alt="duh.gif" src="http://files.mothering.com/images/smilies/duh.gif">  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I really just don't understand the bashing of the vaccine court.  Could someone enlighten me? I mean does anyone actually think they would have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against the kind of lawyers that a multi billion dollar pharmaceutical company could produce? Where the proof of harm would be much higher than in the vaccine courts?  I really just don't get it. <img alt="shrug.gif" src="http://files.mothering.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: Oops forgot to post the link for the ageofautism quote <a href="http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/congressional-briefing-thursday-on-vaccine-court.html#more" target="_blank">http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/congressional-briefing-thursday-on-vaccine-court.html#more</a></p>