|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 16, 2014 9:55:25 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.htmlPage two of the filing declares Ryan suffered, “a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).” It continues, he “suffered a Vaccine Table Injury, namely, an encephalopathy as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003.”
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 16, 2014 18:15:54 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
This surprises me. Not that the children don't deserve damages (if indeed their health problems were caused by the vaccine) -- but that they'd set such a legal precedent. There are so many children with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum that awarding damages to them all would bankrupt the pharmaceutical industry.
That being said -- I don't know if vaccines cause autism. Weirdly, despite autism Jim was always extremely healthy. He's never been sick with any of the childhood diseases except chicken pox.
I do know that James spoke age appropriately to a point. He had his "baby words" and then all of a sudden he stopped talking and didn't speak again until auditory retraining when he was around eight. Was it the vaccines? I honestly don't remember any appreciable difference between before and after his vaccinations. He was always a quiet and well-behaved baby -- so it's not as if there would have been a large difference if there was one.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 18:27:52 GMT -5
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904"In 2005, Margaret Althen successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine had caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted." "No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis.”2 But the VICP was less impressed with the scientific literature than it was with an expert's proposal of a mechanism by which hepatitis B vaccine could induce autoimmunity (an ironic conclusion, given that Dorothy Werderitsh never had a detectable immune response to the vaccine)." "Because autism is a clinical diagnosis, children are labeled as autistic on the basis of a collection of clinical features. Hannah Poling [an alleged vaccination victim] clearly had difficulties with language, speech, and communication. But those features of her condition considered autistic were part of a global encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Rett's syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, fragile X syndrome, and Down's syndrome in children can also have autistic features."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 18:31:14 GMT -5
Dear Zak: This surprises me. Not that the children don't deserve damages (if indeed their health problems were caused by the vaccine) -- but that they'd set such a legal precedent. There are so many children with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum that awarding damages to them all would bankrupt the pharmaceutical industry. It looks like it's more politically convenient to buy off anti-vaccers rather than to keep supporting scientific methods as a basis for these claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 16, 2014 19:35:40 GMT -5
I would tend to draw the opposite conclusion. These cases are settled without contest because the manufacturers know full well that vaccination causes all kinds of health problems, especially damage to the brain and nervous system. And of course vaccination is 100% useless at preventing infection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 9:08:23 GMT -5
I would tend to draw the opposite conclusion. These cases are settled without contest because the manufacturers know full well that vaccination causes all kinds of health problems, especially damage to the brain and nervous system. The manufacturers are not the ones sitting in these courts, hearing the cases, and passing judgement. The people who do are agents of the US government, and would not "know" anything of the sort, since the scientific evidence available so far points to the exact opposite conclusion. Right, it's a complete coincidence that polio, measles and mumps are not widespread epidemic diseases any more. It's also a complete coincidence that local outbreaks of measles almost always happen among people who were not vaccinated against the disease. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 17, 2014 10:07:02 GMT -5
That has to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've heard in a long time. So you think the manufacturers are willing to make multi-million dollar payouts on the basis of unsubstantiated claims? You think they can't bring in expert medical witnesses to testify as to the safety of their products? The reason they don't contest these claims is because they know that the evidence is against them, and they would prefer not to have that evidence presented in court (and published in the media). They stopped being widespread epidemic diseases years, and in some cases decades, before vaccination was introduced. Vaccination has made no difference whatsoever to the prevalence of these diseases. Here's a CDC graph showing the mortality rate for measles (and several other common diseases) before the introduction of mass vaccination.  No, it's not a coincidence, because it's just not true. People who have been vaccinated also contract measles. In fact outbreaks often occur among groups that have been vaccinated. |
|
