Well, it's done. The server migration should be finished. I was out and about last night giving a talk; so I'll only have time for a relatively brief post (for me, at least). Once again, things happen while I'm otherwise...indisposed. This time around, it's something that warms the cockles of what antivaccinationists perceive to be my pharma shill heart. Normally, it's considered bad form to openly express schadenfreude, but I do make at least one exception, and that's when bad things happen to antivaccinationist plans, particularly after they've been crowing about them for weeks.
You might recall that a while back, I learned that the antivaccine fringe group known as the Canary Party had seemingly, in essence, bought and paid for Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Issa now holds the very same chair once held by Dan Burton, the most antivaccine of all antivaccine legislators ever to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, who fortunately retired at the end of the last Congress after decades of making mischief about science. And what did they buy (or think they bought)? Another hearing, another chance to promote the idea that vaccines cause autism, although that's not what it was billed as.
Last year around this time, Issa held a hearing "investigating" the "autism epidemic." Although ostensibly about just autism, the hearing rapidly devolved into an antivaccine wankfest, a mummer's farce, as all such "hearings" do, with antivaccine activists testifying one after another and hapless CDC employees trying to answer questions from clueless Congressional Representatives. I can never figure out why government agencies seemingly send the least prepared of their people to such functions, but that's the way it seemed last year. This year, Issa was going to "investigate" the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) and the Vaccine Court, based seemingly upon a the same sort of misinformation promulgated in a video narrated by the latest clueless celebrity to jump on the antivaccine bandwagon, Rob Schneider. Plans had even progressed to the point where antivaccine lawyer Mary Holland held a briefing for Congressional staffers less than two weeks ago. As usual, it was the same misinformation, misrepresenting the Vaccine Court as some sort of abomination that prevented children with vaccine-induced autism from receiving compensation. Of course, given that vaccines don't cause autism, it's not surprising that the Vaccine Court hasn't granted compensation for that indication, although it's not for lack of bending over backwards to give parents every opportunity to make their case.
So, here we were, looking forward to more of the same on December 4, when this hearing was supposedly scheduled. Then, the other day, I learned it had been canceled, although I had no confirmation. So I waited. I wanted to see what the reaction of the antivaccine movement would be. A deafening silence blanketed the usual suspects, such as the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism and The Canary Party. Then, our old "buddy" Jake Crosby posted:
Unconfirmed reports by several reliable sources including an attorney have been brought to the attention of Autism Investigated. According to these reports, the congressional hearing on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has been cancelled by the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa. This information comes after a vaccine-injured child’s case was misrepresented at a congressional briefing by Canary Party, video footage of which was removed along with an entire post from the Canary Party-sponsored Age of Autism blog.
After Autism Investigated reported on the deletion of the video, Age of Autism restored the post without the video, claiming technical difficulties. Then, after Autism Investigated posted a link to the video and an Age of Autism reader requested AoA also provide a link, the video was fully restored with the technical excuses scrubbed. Below is the NVICP hearing cancellation message from the attorney who gives insight into the reasons behind the cancellation:
“I was just informed by the Counsel for Chairman Issa that due to ‘great deal of reluctance about participating or being drawn into what they, in their private candid discussions with us, say they see as an overly divisive issue’ they are canceling the hearing.”
It's rather hilarious, actually. Later in the post, Jake refers to news of last year's conference being "leaked," which is silly. People who deal with Congress have their ears to the ground and find out about these sorts of hearings before they show up on the official Committee schedule all the time. No leaking necessary. This year, particularly, vaccine advocates have been keeping their ears and eyes open, expecting The Canary Party to pull something like this again. It is rather amusing, however, to see Jake lash out yet again at his former allies and friends:
If confirmed, it will be a tragedy that direct interference by Canary Party and specifically Mark Blaxill led to the collapse of the hearing. Blaxill said on Linderman last month that Canary Party asked for hearings on NVICP instead of CDC malfeasance (as was falsely promised to autism parent and scientist Dr. Brian Hooker) because that was the topic Issa wanted. Yet now Issa is cancelling the hearing because of the divisiveness of the topic itself – the very topic Blaxill claimed Issa wanted to hold the hearing about.
Meanwhile, later yesterday, the antivaccine crank blog finally had to acknowledge that, yes, the planned Committee hearing was indeed "postponed indefinitely" (translation: canceled):
Yesterday The Canary Party and her partners who have worked for a year on getting hearings on vaccine injury in Congress were informed that the hearing on the VICP that was set for December 4th has been postponed until next year. We had a call this morning with the staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government to get more clarity on their decision, and were informed that while the community of vaccine injured families is eager to testify, they were finding "reluctance" from others to participate in the hearings.
Our response? Of course they don't want to participate in these hearings! Those both inside and outside of government who are involved in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the monumental injustice that is being inflicted on untold thousands of vaccine injured children do not want to have to show up and explain what they have done under oath!
More like this: NVICP and CDC officials likely don't want to waste their time answering spurious, pseudoscience and conspiracy laden nonsensical charges about the NVICP in front of a committee chaired by a scientific ignoramus. Meanwhile, Jennifer Larson and Mark Blaxill posted a gut-bustingly hysterical letter bemoaning the decision, perhaps the only good decision Darrell Issa has made about science since he took over as chair of OGR and urge AoA readers to call, e-mail, and mail their Congressional Representatives on the committee. Personally, I hope they all do just that. Blaxill and Larson's letter is probably the most "reasonable" commentary Congressional officials will get. Just dive into the comments to see the sorts of things committee members can read. In fact, pro-vaccine advocates might want to send links and screenshots of comments like this:
I don’t believe we will get justice for this planned children genocide with toxic vaccines in the US Congress, which is totally sold to pharma cartels. We should sue these cartels and their govt collaborators in the International Criminal Court at Nuremberg-like trial.
Speechless, but not surprised. The stonewalling, cover-ups, and corruption continue…unchecked. Meanwhile, the "autism" epidemic rages on…unchecked. Profits for Big pHARMa grow bigger…unchecked. The ethics and morals of our elected officials head further south…unchecked. Vaccine-injured children and their families continue to suffer and be left without meaningful help or services…unchecked.
Shame on every single elected official who has allowed this hearing to be delayed. News flash for you: you, your children, and your grandchildren will be joining our ranks, of that you can be sure, because you continue to allow the use of neurotoxic, immune, gut, and nervous-sytem damaging vaccines, poisonous GMO foods, nerve-damaging pesticides, and dangerous chemicals…unchecked. You and yours will not escape your unethical and immoral decisions.
If you are not going to serve the public, but rather big business and their special interest groups and lobbyists, then please resign and go work for them directly…or are you already?
Yes, more comments like these to committee members, please. There's nothing like letting the antivaccine fringe speak out freely to reveal even to Darrell Issa that they are complete and total cranks.
This is good news. After they wasted 24 billion dollars with their government shutdown I am glad to see they didn't waste more time with spurious nonsense such as this. Will somebody please inform them that the Norwegian Blue is dead ?
@DLC: it's not dead, just pining for the fjords.
I think I'll be making this for dessert tonight:
Schadenfreude Pie: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2006/09/26/how-to-make-a-schadenfreude-pie/
There's probably a myriad of reasons this hearing didn't come to pass: a lot going on in the government already right now, low approval ratings across the board, these people aren't good at hiding the Crazy, outbreaks of VPDs across the US in the last few months, an outbreak going on right now at Princeton, MASSIVE backlash this summer against an anti-vaxxer (and that was a reaction to someone entertaining these ideas going on a harpy entertainment talk-show, not reaction to legit goverment officials who make policies), these people are crazy, possible chastisement from CDC et al. at merely the thought of this hearing, the Makin' Copies Guy narrated the video, they did some research on the groups and saw these people are crazy, and, maybe I'm being naive, but perhaps a little bit of logic-based reason made them question the hearing. Maybe, maybe, something got through and they realized what this was and how dangerous it is.
Keep fighting the good fight, sometimes people listen.
And Cathy Jameson appears ( @ AoA) with a message and video for Issa.
Jake doesn't realise it but he is probably doing SBM a great service because he is helping to dismantle anti-vax's most solidifed network of advocacy groups ( AoA, the Canary Party,TMR, side projects are linked).
So keep ripping at Mark & friends, Jake- they're cranks and endanger children's health by persuing pseudoscience. And don't think that YOU'RE the replacement, the awaited messiah parents will cherish: they have better organisation, money and sobbing, defiant mothers with whom to identify. And your pseudoscience is even further off from reality than the aforementioned.
-btw- too bad it's lost in the shuffle but I briefly detailed the interconnections in anti-vax world- without circles and arrows- yesterday.
( the quotes our benevolent and transplendent host includes include examples)
Jake, in his blog over the past weeks, has repeatedly refered to "Canary Party"** sans the article whilst party members and/ or AoA folk include it.
Is there are arcane reason for this malapropism? Is it a shibboleth to identify his followers? Is he doubting that CP is a real party perhaps? Or are his language skills just off?
** above he uses "the" only when using CP adjectivally.
So Issa didn't stay bought. Color me unsurprised.
(There is a cynical school of thought to the effect that an honest politician stays bought. But Issa has long had a reputation for dishonesty, even for a politician.)
A victory for the pro-vaxxers? Seriously -- who won and who lost?
Seriously — who won[?]
Those who: support Science-based medicine; don't want to see the return of VPD's with all the resultant suffering that would entail; know that vaccines do not cause autism, and; realise that damaging the NVICP would cause more harm than good.
and who lost?
The liars known as the antivaccination movement.
Science and facts win, any time pseudoscience and misinformation is denied a platform.
So apparently I mistyped my name--I am so smart, S-M-R-T!--and my comment is awaiting moderation. So, with my REAL name:
Science and facts win, any time pseudoscience and misinformation is denied a platform.
Everyone wins when vaccines are supported. Even the loons who attribute evil unfounded to their use.
That reminds me. Gotta set up that killfile....
Before I leave:
I think that the smarter** anti-vaxxers are already preparing to branch out beyond the narrow confines of 'vaccines-autism"- a dead end:
the Canary Party discusses other conditions in children and adults caused by vaccines plus myriad other products of modernity in libertarian fashion
TMR also similarly discusses alt med issues and seems to be evolving into a mothers' social network
AoA speaks increasingly about real world issues that autistics encounter ( being lost, group living, employment)
Jenny has moved on for the most part
Kim S writes 'chick lit' detective novels.
Louise Kuo Habakus and Alison MacNeil have a general woo-ified site, Nurture Parenting and a radio show @ PRN, Fearless Parent Radio. Oh, it's quite a listening experience.
There's life and business after a-v crumbles.
** yeah, I know.
As to who won, I'd also say families of people with (the very rare) real vaccine injuries, who can continue to get compensated through the more friendly NVICP now. Even if some of them, lacking comparison, can't appreciate the benefits of the process.
I am sure there are a lot of parents who were seeing this hearing as a solution to what they see as an injustice and are sincerely hurting. I think the hearing was dangerous, and am glad it's abolished, but I can't help feeling for the parents who must now feel their voices were silenced. They may be wrong, but I wish there was a way to hear them out that would not put the vaccine program or the public health in danger. I understand that the people that frequent AoA are probably not going to be convinced vaccines aren't the most evil thing in the world, and I'm sure many of you have tried to dialogue (I'm a newcomer, after all), but there is a lot of pain and anger there, and I wish there was a way to address it without sacrificing children's health.
"I can’t help feeling for the parents who must now feel their voices were silenced"
" I wish there was a way to hear them out that would not put the vaccine program or the public health in danger"
Oh such empathy -- such understanding! Perhaps though for the sake of clarity, and avoiding further hurt feelings when your motives are exposed, you should simply stick to the party line: Remember that you are only dealing with lying, ignorant quacks, and who are looking for free meals for the 'damaged' kids that they just can't accept.
Denice @ 16:
I think that the smarter** anti-vaxxers are already preparing to branch out beyond the narrow confines of ‘vaccines-autism”- a dead end:
I don't agree with this; you certainly have a good bead on their activities but I think their "vaccinesdidit" is just too ingrained and such a large part of their identity that they will never abandon it. I think their "branching out" is merely to demonstrate that they aren't fringe-whacko one-trick-ponies and wish to attract a wider audience to their cause. I mean how can you be a good warrior mommy if you don't care about all "toxins".
I think the explanation is a lot more simple. Darrell Issa is a thoroughly repugnant man who should have been sent to jail long ago, but he is merely a low level leader in a nasty political movement. He has a committee chairmanship due to the way the system operates, not due to any inherent talent on his part. He is even a bit of an embarrassment to the party as a whole, and in particular to the California branch of the party.
There is little reason to believe that the current leadership of the Republican Party is interested in taking on pharmaceutical companies and their lobbies, nor in antagonizing the medical associations. Both are sources of campaign funding and support. If you could ever claim that some group of people are "pharma shills," it would be the Republican caucus in the US congress. Dems too, unfortunately. As evidence, I need merely point to the fact that other civilized countries negotiate with drug manufacturers over retail prices, and the US government won't allow this. And no, this has essentially nothing to do with the safety or price of vaccines, but it would be a minor irritant for some of the wealthiest, most powerful companies on earth, so why poke that hornet's nest? Issa tossed a small bone to the outgoing chair Burton, and probably is exceedingly bored of the whole thing by now. At least I hope he has this minimal level of rationality.
I do tend to disagree with the argument that Darrell Issa was bought for $40,000. I seem to recall that the people who made the donation then made this claim -- not in those exact words, but close enough. It was a power play within the anti-vaccine movement, not a statement of fact.
If Issa wants $40,000 or $400,000 for some bit of mischief, he has merely to pick up the phone and ask for it from one of the many wealthy donors who support the anti-Democratic side. The amount corresponds to about a hundredth of a percent of his personal wealth, so he can even write himself a check.
I suspect that the House Republicans are busy with other forms of mischief and don't need to create another circus that will make them look silly.
That reminds me. Gotta set up that killfile….
Which reminded me to get mine working again. Now if everyone ignored him I wouldn't even know he was there.
At least I hope he has this minimal level of rationality.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You may be right that Issa (or one of his major donors) decided it was better to back off the anti-vax stuff, but he's from a party that hasn't been what reasonable people would consider rational lately, and he's not from the less insane wing of that party, AFAICT. If anything, a split has developed between Chamber of Commerce types and the radical billionaires--the former learned during the shutdown that sadly, their money isn't needed anymore.
I would attribute the staying-power of the anti-vaxx movement to something far simpler: Vaccines causing autism.
The real pharma shills a.k.a. the antivaccine movement lost. We all know that preventing diseases with cheap vaccines is far less profitable than treating them with various types of medications. Big pharma realized that vaccines were effective a long time ago which has significantly contributed to jeopardizing the global depopulation agenda and the installment of the new world order. But science and skeptics always win. The pharmafia's attempt to cause fear succeeded in causing epidemics thanks to the well known shill Andrew Wakefield, but since the link between vaccines and autism was disproved, fortunately a lot of people don't buy that BS.
It is good news the hearing is not happening.
But, like zombie whack-a-moles, the anti-vaccine people will be back.
@ Science Mom:
Oh perhaps I wasn't clear enough:
I think that "vaccines-cause-autism" is truly the leaders' organising principle and their *raison d'etre* and will remain so BUT they will add to their hit list:
they need to attract more followers than just autism parents who blame vaccines - they have them already-
they want parents of kids with asthma and other conditions, 'naturalistas', alties, health freedom advocates, ND clients, anti-SBMers to sympathise. Much the same audience as that which Null Adams and Mercola attract.
There's also a disturbing political slant to their doings. Blaxill, Larson and LKH are business people first and foremost- they want a larger pool of 'customers'.
As an example, TMR's MacNeil's and LHK's new projects include a website ( Nuture Parenting) and a "radio" show,"Fearless Parent" ( @ PRN) as well as live 'events' where they speak publicly. Vaccines are one topic amongst many- their central dogma is "Parents trump experts every time" with " We have OUR OWN experts" as corollary.
I have so far been unable to listen to an entire hour of them; podcasts @ their website ( they include Kelly Brogan, Jennifer Margulies in their posse ) Take a peek or a listen.
Thanks Denice, can't argue with that.
Right, we is on same page both literally and figuratively.
@ Dr Chris:
I think that you might *enjoy* ( and I do use that word loosely) perusing 'Nurture Parenting' and' Fearless Parent Radio'. Condensed parental radical chic.
I'm wondering if the "reluctance" isn't merely on the congressional and CDC side but also on the antivaccinationist's side.
I wonder if maybe some of the 'luminaries' who were expected to testify may have backed out in concern for perhaps being found in contempt if shown to be lying.
With the amount these loons lie and dissemble it would only take one skeptical aide to find them out.
I realise they are quite careful with their words at events such as these, but a slip up could occur and perhaps the provaccine forces had alerted enough participants that it wasn't going to be a guaranteed smooth sailing extravaganza.
@ Reality: You don't have to "wonder" about the activities of the pro vaccine and pro science bloggers who have been posting about this latest Congressional hearing; follow Orac's links to their posts.
EBCALA has put this spin on the "indefinite postponement":
Where's my popcorn?
You can look up campaign money at opensecrets.org or you can Google campaign contributions Darrell Issa. For example, in the 2012 campaign, Issa shows the following contribution total for pharmaceutical companies and individuals:
This sector was fifth overall in his campaign contribution categories. Other categories that beat out the pharmaceutical industry? Retired individuals, lawyers and law firms, securities and investment, Republican and conservative people and organizations. Other big time contributions came from oil and gas, casinos, health care professionals, insurance. A lot of this came from pacs.
In other words, when you subtract out the tea party craziness, Issa is a typical Republican who is in bed with pretty much every industry and group that has a lot of money and wants to maintain its advantages in the world marketplace. If you were to check out powerful Democrats in the state legislature or in the US Senate, I think you will find similar connections.
For example, looking up Senator Dianne Feinstein (same state as Issa), you will find that pharmaceuticals are down at 11th place on her list, but totalling $202,000. She gets more from the electrical utilities industry, real estate, law firms, and so on.
In other words, the anti-vaccine groups are what politicians call "budget dust" when it comes to their fundraising. Their only strength would come from having lots of activist voters, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Issa gets to indulge his anti-scientific mean streak once in a while, but he is unlikely to take it anywhere that threatens the corporations and wealthy businesses that underwrite the Republican Party. If the Koch brothers were to invest in a plant that makes the mmr vaccine, he would be supporting it like that.
" It's better the hearing got cancelled than be co-opted by Canary Party" saith Jake in a comment on his latest post.
Reality: I wonder if maybe some of the ‘luminaries’ who were expected to testify may have backed out in concern for perhaps being found in contempt if shown to be lying.
AOP: maybe I’m being naive, but perhaps a little bit of logic-based reason made them question the hearing.
I think you're both giving them too much credit. Even thinking they might possibly be wrong is a level of self-awareness these smug suburbanites don't have. I think it's more likely that one of Issa's donors got out the rolled out newspapers and told him there's been enough tomfoolery already.
Dorit: I am sure there are a lot of parents who were seeing this hearing as a solution to what they see as an injustice and are sincerely hurting. I think the hearing was dangerous, and am glad it’s abolished, but I can’t help feeling for the parents who must now feel their voices were silenced.
I wouldn't waste your sympathy on them. You remind me of Wendy Davis, another awesome woman who's wasting her time with people who don't deserve her time, her energy, or even her proximity.
From what I've seen of anti-vax parents, they're smug little Stepfords, intolerant of any imperfection, and willing to destroy their autistic kid's life in order to 'save' them. The only thing they 'deserve' from us is mockery, and possibly visits from CPS.
There aren't any 'injuries.' Hannah Poling's parents deliberately tried to sabotage vaccination efforts in the States. Like I said, they knew what they were doing when they filed. Their attempts at damage control are annoying and hypocritical.
Hannah Poling’s parents deliberately tried to sabotage vaccination efforts in the States.
I'm sorry PGP but I don't agree. As I said on a previous comment, Hannah had an injury which the government conceded may have been worsened by her vaccines. That antivaxxers have dishonestly tried to co-opt the Polings is neither a reflection on the Polings, nor evidence that they "deliberately tried to sabotage vaccination efforts in the States".
Even thinking they might possibly be wrong is a level of self-awareness these smug suburbanites don’t have.... Hannah Poling’s parents deliberately tried to sabotage vaccination efforts in the States. Like I said, they knew what they were doing when they filed. Their attempts at damage control are annoying and hypocritical.
'I wouldn’t waste your sympathy on them. You remind me of Wendy Davis, another awesome woman who’s wasting her time with people who don’t deserve her time, her energy, or even her proximity.
From what I’ve seen of anti-vax parents, they’re smug little Stepfords, intolerant of any imperfection, and willing to destroy their autistic kid’s life in order to ‘save’ them. The only thing they ‘deserve’ from us is mockery, and possibly visits from CPS."
You see that Dorit? There is a perfect example of the type of hate and contempt that the parents of vaccine damaged kids can expect. Why mess with their heads even further by shedding a few 'crocodile tears'?
What perfect embodiment of the 'killer instinct'. Mock them -- deride them --show them no mercy. Surely such ruthlessness must extend from some neuroses. Yet heck -- who says all skills must come from virtue?
interesting how the cancellation has led to responses from partisans which can function as rorshachs for us!
I wrote ( which was swallowed by the migration) detailing the chief factions in the internecine conflict.
Here's what I see:
Jake hosts contrarians to antivaxxers ( who are contrarians themselves) but the negatives don't cancel each other out yielding rationality but only take the kid further afield. He may have supporters amongst outsiders to the already outre like Bolen, Best, Hooker, various groupies east and west (UK/ US), the Geiers and possibly the moneyed Barry.
Meanwhile, AoA/ the Canary Party, TMR ( and its side project- "Fearless Parent") would appeal to more middle-of-the-road parents including those whose children don't have ASDs or who haven't children at all yet.. All aboard,the MommyShip!
Although most of these women ( and a few men) may be absolutely loathesome because of their pseudoscientific, disease-promoting activities, they might engage parents who feel solidarity with them either because of their diffculties or because of similar politics. The Canary Party and TMR have approximately 10K and 15K facebook friends, respectively. They cultivate personae of concerned parents and rebellious warrior/ mother bears fighting injustice for LOVE of their children.
Jake can't compete with that.
Woo-meisters who rail against authority as brave maverick scientists / investigative journalists ( which are the two roles that JC is understudying) have other personal attributes ( friendly and down-to-earth, altho' faux) as well as promises ( to cure what ails ye)
that Jake can't aspire to.
Actually, it's the other side which more nearly fulfills the requirements:
they want to be your friends ( esp TMR) and they can teach you how to avoid illness by living right ( esp the Canary Party)
"other civilized countries negotiate with drug manufacturers over retail prices, and the US government won’t allow this."
This is an arguable point. There are certainly many ways the government COULD exercise control over prices. With vaccines in particular, the government has a strong position simply because its own agencies are the leading customers for the vaccines. A fair case can be made that, historically, the profitability and quality of vaccines suffered because of the government's disproportionate influence.
Greggles, you're basically the embodiment of the plastic people I just mentioned. We both know that if your kids became disabled from mumps or measles, you'd abandon them immediately. And all emotions are 'neuroses,' I just have to choose which ones, like anger, are valid, and which ones to discard.
We both know that if your kids became disabled from mumps or measles, you’d abandon them immediately.
Really, PGP? This isn't helping.
AdamG: Sorry, Greg just gets to me. I wish we could get a better class of slithy tove, but I suppose we're stuck with him. Like I said, I'm working on weeding out the whole emotion bug from my brain.
Pgp: Please ignore the ignorant, craving-for-attention Troll.
Although I admire your tenacity to stick-to-your-guns, none of us can really ablate emotions if they were an unwanted neoplasm-
because they're *not* - they're part of of us and are our reptilian and mammalian heritage. So what's not to love?
More seriously, I wouldn't draw a hard and fast dividing line between emotions and thinking either.
At any rate, I would bet real money that you could kick troll butt any day of the week. Probably with one hand tied behind your back.
Now hold up there PGP -- 'plastic people'? Let me be perfectly clear that even though I work with special needs individuals, a severely disabled child would be the last thing that I would want. If it were to happen would I be able to overcome my regrets and accept and love that child? Absolutely!
Now PGP, suburbanites rejecting their 'imperfect' kids seems to be a reoccuring theme with you. It seems rather personal. Now that we are being open with one another, why don't you be a little more forthcoming and tell us what 'imperfection' those suburbanites found in you?
Also PGP, as for your anger for those suburbanites, maybe it's a little displaced and meant for someone else.
DW: Although I admire your tenacity to stick-to-your-guns, none of us can really ablate emotions if they were an unwanted neoplasm-
because they’re *not* – they’re part of of us and are our reptilian and mammalian heritage. So what’s not to love?
They're uncontrollable, irrational, and not good things to show in public. I spent too many years at their mercy.
Can you tell Denice to please stop. If you do me the favour, I promise not to insult you anymore.
Hey Denice, when I was studying psychology in university, I learned that psychology students were rated as the mosnt likely to need a psychologist. What does that say?
They’re uncontrollable, irrational, and not good things to show in public
Damásio (among others) has argued that in fact emotions are a crucial *component* of rationality; that rationality is impossible without that aspect of cognition. See, for instance, Descartes' Error. Though it has to be said that Damásio is a sloppy writer and needs a ruthlessly stern editor.
You can learn to harness emotions and decide, like an actor, to show whatever expressions you wish to others. Don't give upon yourself and your own possibilities at such a young age.
Seriously -- am I the only one seeing PGP as the most self-centered, egotistical brat?
PGP: There are sometimes good reasons not to show your emotions in public; no argument there.
If you could somehow banish all emotion, what would be left? Logic might enable you to figure out the best way to achieve a goal, but it won't help you choose goals. Even if the goal is pretty intellectual (working on an interesting mathematical problem), you still need enough emotion to want to work on the problem, not just stare blankly into space until you starve.
You don't owe us, or any random strangers, your emotions. If you feel safer hiding them, that's your right: but it matters because you want to feel, and be, safe.
Hey Denice, when I was studying psychology in university, I learned that psychology students were rated as the mosnt likely to need a psychologist. What does that say?
So what? Is it really a problem?
Greg: Trust me, I'm a lot less of a bitch in public. Whereas you are probably just as unpleasant in real life. And I highly doubt you studied psychology- for that matter, I doubt you even attended a university.
Oh, Greg, I should add that I hate hypocrisy with a passion and you and your pals are full of it. On one side of your mouth, you blither on about how you love people with disabilities, and on the other side you talk about people who 'incessantly head-bang, wear diapers and are non-verbal.'
I find that sort of lie particularly disgusting; it's one thing to lie to strangers, it's another to float a family on a sea of lies, and have the kids grow up believing their parents love them- until they stumble upon their parent's real thoughts on the internet.
I haven't been able to work out just what it is that the people pushing for this hearing want. Are they saying that the vaccine injury compensation program should be abolished, or what?
I think a lot of people will be tuning out to these threads now. Having some stupid twerp in the room, piping up with poisonous inanities all the time, isn't going to lead to discussion that warrants much attention.
Dorit, for cases like Cat Jameson's, it wouldn't make any difference if the vaccine act were abolished. She, like many other autism claimants, asked the vaccine court to dismiss her case for lack of evidence of causation. Insufficient evidence in the medical records, and she couldn't get an expert to write an opinion to support the case. That case would most likely be a loser as a product liability case in any jurisdiction. It doesn't seem to be a failing of vaccine court in particular.
"I haven’t been able to work out just what it is that the people pushing for this hearing want. Are they saying that the vaccine injury compensation program should be abolished, or what?"
Anne, do you have kids? Imagine you had a healthy child, reaching all his milestones. You then take him in for a series of shots and he suffers serious health consequences -- seizures, brain injuries leading to autism, asthma, stomach issues, and so on. Anne, along with the emotional devastation that this has caused you, you must also accept the steep financial hardship of looking after this child because your claim was denied by the NVICP, and you have no further legal recourse.
Anne, what would you want?
"That case would most likely be a loser as a product liability case in any jurisdiction"
Indeed that might be the case. Yet, in civil court where expert opinions are allowed, and such cases are entered in the records as precedents, all it would take is one strong case -- ie the Poling case -- for others to succeed. Essentially such a case would pave the way.
Further, being that vaccine makers would now be dealing with stiffer legal liabilities, this would provide more incentives for them to make safer vaccines.
@#63, I meant 'scientific evidence', instead of 'expert opinion'
"Oh, Greg, I should add that I hate hypocrisy with a passion and you and your pals are full of it. On one side of your mouth, you blither on about how you love people with disabilities, and on the other side you talk about people who ‘incessantly head-bang, wear diapers and are non-verbal."
PGP, where is the hypocrisy -- really? Why can't you understand that the parents of vaccine injured kids love their kids, but not what vaccines did to them?
"(A)nd have the kids grow up believing their parents love them- until they stumble upon their parent’s real thoughts on the internet"
And PGP, don't even bother comparing your plight to vaccine injured kids. Are you non-verbal? Are you in diapers? Do you head-bang? Please!
Obviously you have some personal stuff going on with your family. Why you would run with it and spew such venom at all suburbanites is beyond me.
Perhaps also you are curious about whether I would also reject you for your 'imperfection'. All I can say is try me.
Uh...Greggers? The Polings WON in Vaccine court because the decision was that the fever from the vaccines "could" have contributed to her decline and autistic-like behaviors HANNAH DOES NOT HAVE AUTISM.. While *also* recognizing that ANY fever could have done so due to her mitochondrial disorder. And without pointing out that 18 months of ear infections, ear tubes, and related fevers and illnesses may also have contributed.
The cases that LOST - the Omnibus cases - had no such science or documentation behind them. They had no proof that vaccines (not even the 50% and a feather the Polings won on) caused their children's issues.
Vaccines did not injure any of the children in the Omnibus case and lead to autism. They lost. They put their *best* cases out and lost. And you lose when you support the lies.
Greg is spamming some more. I will simply repeat the existence of the Lurker Challenge involving him: anyone except him who thinks he has a shred of a point need only speak up and say "I think this should be addressed," and I will consider myself obligated to give the best answer I can, and encourage other RI regulars to also answer.
No one has yet taken up that challenge, leading to the logical conclusion that even other antivaxers don't think Greg's droolings have a shred of a point in them.
Antaeus, I'd like to second that challenge.
What do you think, lurkers?
Come on out.
I know that there has been great benefit to us from well-constructed replies by Kreb, Antaeus and Julian amongst many others for which we are grateful as well as enlightened.
Speak, speak or forever hold your peace ( or least until later this evening).
Moving right along:
as the Internecine Internet War continues apace, I notice that even Dan today refers to his former colleague's speculation as "crazy ideas"( albeit in bad French) whilst he said little when the man-child was esconced within his editorial purview. I wonder why?
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth....."
It should be noted that recently, both AoA and AI ( Jake's place) have permitted Orac's minions within their guarded walls: Chris Hickie, PGP, Narad and Alain IIRC.
At any rate, MI Dawn is correct:
anti-vaxxers confuse the Poling situation with their own and have even confabulated explanations as to why they were denied but the Polings were not, such as one parent is a doctor. Explalns it all.
Just let the Troll yammer on and just ignore the craving-for-attention behaviors.
In other news, AoA has Theresa Cedillo's article up where about the "indefinite postponement" of the Congressional hearing. I found a rather complete synopsis of the Cedillo case at Wikipedia:
Dan Olmsted explains about the disappearance/reappearance of the briefing video and how he addressed that problem with a "conspiracist blogger" (Jake?), who persisted in attributing the technical problems to a conspiracy. Dan also has a photo of a restaurant neon sign "Just Plum Crazy". Does Dan finally "get it'?
"HANNAH DOES NOT HAVE AUTISM"
My bad: Hannah is non-verbal. Probably engages in aberrant, ritualistic behaviour, and lacking social skills. In addition, it's fair to assume that some the funds won from vaccine court is going towards her treatment and care that autistics typically receive.
Yes, she does not have autism. Just where am I getting all my crazy ideas? (Hee hee hee).
I might have mentioned this before, but my son's school held a flu vaccine clinic last month - there was such a high demand that they had to expand the area for the clinic twice to accommodate everyone that wanted to participate....good to see so many people & their kids - so nice to live in an area with so many educated people.
Dan Olmsted explains about the disappearance/reappearance of the briefing video and how he addressed that problem with a “conspiracist blogger” (Jake?), who persisted in attributing the technical problems to a conspiracy.
It certainly took him long enough, as I think it was Thursday that I suggested that his merely bleating "technical problem" wasn't particularly persuasive. And neither is this explanation:
As we told readers, we had to take the post down and find a different video link....
I don't recall the "as we told readers" part, and they always had the original, working link, even if there's something so hopelessly broken in Typepad that it was affecting the loading the front page with the Drive-supplied embed code, which one would presume they were using.
Apparently, being able to embed the video was more important than the very content of the video. Another victory of style over substance for AoA.
But you did, politely, pass on you son's flu vaccine, didn't you?
Greg:Why can’t you understand that the parents of vaccine injured kids love their kids, but not what vaccines did to them?
Because they don't give their kids any sort of useful help, refuse to encourage them and force them into bizarre punitive diets and treatments? Oh, yeah, and they support the murderers of autistic children; I hold AOA and TMR responsible for escalating the situation in the Spourdalikis case. The sole responsibility for the actual murder rests with the caretakers, but I think the rhetoric they heard from the people who were there to 'help' only spurred them on.
As for the rest, shut up. I may not have autism, but that doesn't mean I can't sympathize with them or stick up for my pals on the spectrum. Or, you know, just be against people being ignorant jerks on the internet, and strutting their ignorance for all to see.
Because they don’t give their kids any sort of useful help, refuse to encourage them and force them into bizarre punitive diets and treatments? Oh, yeah, and they support the murderers of autistic children; I hold AOA and TMR responsible for escalating the situation in the Spourdalikis case. The sole responsibility for the actual murder rests with the caretakers, but I think the rhetoric they heard from the people who were there to ‘help’ only spurred them on.
I'm sure Gerg will be disappointed to know that PGP and I don't always disagree. Then again, I doubt Gerg could succeed with "divide and conquer" on his own natal cleft, and half the work there is already done.
@Anne: I am aware of that. But the plaintiffs seen to think they have a better chance convincing a civil judge than the special master. Who knows? One or two may fall on a judge that may make an error. Most if not all will be summarily dismissed, and unlike NVICP will also have to pay trial costs. Bad result for everyone.
If the parents want civil court and pharma is not afraid of it because all the cases will be dismissd anyway, then this begs two simple question. First, why was NVICP created in the first place. (Wait -- was it not created because pharma
Pharma is not afraid of civil court because they are likely to still win anyway, and even have their legal fees paid. Yet, the NVICP was created because they were indeed losing. Even if they feel they will have better luck a second time around then great -- everyone is in agreement. Pharma wants civil court and so do the parents. All parties should keep the Dec 4th Hearing date. Since it's the festive season they could even exchange presents and, perhaps, a few choiced well wishes
OK, I let my curiosity get the better of me, and I was richly rewarded with humor value:
Indeed that might be the case. Yet, in civil court where [scientific opinion] are allowed, and such cases are entered in the records as precedents, all it would take is one strong case — ie the Poling case — for others to succeed. Essentially such a case would pave the way.
I forget which recent AoA item Gerg is borrowing (and mangling) this from, but the actual "argument" is the fantasy that "in civil court," one can establish an overarching "precedent" for "a theory of causation." It goes without saying that evidence in one case, which is what Gerg seems to have intended, given his fruitless redaction from "expert opinions," has no bearing on any other case.
What this swirling accretion disk around a clue-gobbling black hole reveals is that these types have had their heads embedded in (and had it so good with) the unified, non-Daubert world of the OSM that they have no idea what the real world of product-liability or, apparently, any civil litigation is like.
Keep in mind that the immediate application of this fantasy is to state-court actions: the Bruesewitzes sued in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (It's certainly not to the Polings, which involves the additional wishful thinking that one would simply be able to pop into a court somewhere, say "mitochondrial disorder," and be off to the races.)
OK, so imagine that NCVIA doesn't exist, and the B.'s prevail. Trial court, no "predecent" anywhere. Wyeth naturally appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On the basis of law or fact? Well, it had better be fact, because we want to wring some sort of mass precedent out of this: vaccine--autism claims are not facially barred. Going forward, since it's Pennsylvania, we're not entirely certain whether the second or the third Restatement of Torts is going to be applied. But upon making this observation, we have already failed, because the former requires negligence or unreasonable dangerousness and the latter imposes risk–utility balancing. And at the end of the day, not one other state has any particular reason to give a rat's ass about Pennsylvania.
Gerg is under the impression that "all it would take is one strong case — ie the Poling case — for others to succeed." This again is none other than the very, very far removed from reality notion that one case outside of the OSM would cause to instantaneously spring into being in every venue something that exists only within the OSM, the "table injury."
The true fantasy, which Gerg entirely fails to appreciate, is something akin to asbestos (certainly not tobacco, in which case the ultimate payout was to the states). A Poling-based class action would have an entirely unsatisfying bar to entry.
As it happens, I found myself immersed in asbestos litigation, to the point of transcribing depositions, back when the consolidation into the Eastern District of Pennsylvania occurred. Here's a tip: Amchem failed. This is a best-case scenario, an illness (mesothelioma) with a single causative agent. And on and on the litigation goes.
The next best comparable, if one willing to not be an idiot and forget about Poling as some sort of imaginary precedent, is silicone breast implants, and this ultimately tanked. In view of that chronology, there is no reason to suppose that vaccines would get anywhere close, and if they did, what's the outcome? A couple of people win the lottery, and everybody else winds up with either nothing or, through a class settlement, less than they would have received through the extant no-fault system.
Well done. Congratulations.
^ Make that "scientific evidence" in brackets.
Narad, as beautiful as that was, I'm afraid that it's utterly wasted on the bubble-gum brainspace of our dear Greggums.
P.S. Greggums, Hannah Poling is not non-verbal nor anti-social nor any of the other negative characteristics you continually wank on about regarding special needs people. She also avidly peruses the internet with her own name searches per her mother; the one you viciously attacked because she told the AoA brigade to go pound sand.
I’m afraid that it’s utterly wasted on the bubble-gum brainspace of our dear Greggums.
Oh, it wasn't for his benefit. It was more the recollection that he was getting something even wronger than it was to start with. It turns out to have been this, not AoA:
Sidenote: In real courts, precedent is a determining factor in theoretical causation. Precedent is not permitted in vaccine court. Meaning, any case that is won is sealed and attorneys are not allowed to review the medical documentation that influenced the award in that case.
It was phenomenally stupid there, but Gerg actually managed to turn it up to 11.
The Polings WON in Vaccine court because the decision was that the fever from the vaccines “could” have contributed to her decline and autistic-like behaviors
Am I right in thinking the Vaccine Court conceded, which is different to the Polings winning? I think this has a bearing on exactly what the court ruled, but I have never been entirely clear on this, despite reading a lot about the case. Perhaps Narad or someone else with a better understanding than I would be willing to clarify this.
Incidentally, I see that Wikipedia suggests (to be precise it quotes Hannah's mother speculating) that Hannah's mitochondrial disorder might itself have been caused by vaccination. This seems impossible to me, since de novo mutations surely cannot happen when a child is 19 months old. I'm less clear on epigenetic effects, but that also seems unlikely, since for such changes to affect enough cells in an individual they must surely have occurred during very early development.
As I understand it, since the mitochondria are the energy generators of our cells, if they don't function properly they may be unable to supply sufficient energy during periods of high demand such as a fever. In the brain this insufficient energy generation may lead to brain damage. Since autism is clearly not brain damage this is yet another factor that makes this case of very little relevance to autism.
Am I right in thinking the Vaccine Court conceded, which is different to the Polings winning?
If there were a concession (as opposed to merely a settlement), which I don't know offhand, it would have been on the part of the respondent, i.e., the government in the person of (the Secretary of) HHS, not the court per se.
Am I right in thinking the Vaccine Court conceded, which is different to the Polings winning?
Correct. The HHS conceded the case for a table injury of encephalopathy.
Incidentally, I see that Wikipedia suggests (to be precise it quotes Hannah’s mother speculating) that Hannah’s mitochondrial disorder might itself have been caused by vaccination.
Ya but no; vaccine don't cause mitochondrial disorders, they are already there. It was found in this case that the vaccines she received as a "catch up" presumably aggravated an underlying mito disorder. Incidentally, mum has the same mutation.
Greg, my child is an autistic adult who is not vaccine injured. If he were vaccine injured, I think I would like to have access to a no-fault program like the NVICP.
The more time I spent with you drug-dealers the better I get at catching on to your ploys. At your post #79, we see the 'tried and tested' tactic of misrepresenting your opinions argument, and responding with a wealth of counter arguments, rebutting the misrepresented argument. Lost in the whole affair -- and deliberately so -- is the validity of your opponents real argument.
Narad, both you and I know that the benefit of precedent setting cases does not extend from them serving as a model for ensuing flimsy claims based on them The benefit of precedent cases is that they provide a precise procedural model for other cases to emulate. And it's reasonable to expect that those cases that do, will also be victorious.
In regards to the Poling case serving as a precedent, indeed we would not expect everyone to waltz into court claiming mitochondrial disorder and expect to win.
What we would expect is that if such a case was presented in civil court rather than conceded in NVICP, no doubt expert witnesses woulf have been called upon. Sciientific evidence would have also been presented. And, should the case still go on to win (which I believe it would have) such evidence would have gone in the public records -- essentially providing a prescription for other prospective claimants to follow. Narad simply put, those claimants would have step-by-step instructions on how to launch a successful case.
As it stands, Narad, with NVICP not allowing scientic evidence and having the options to seal records after a decision, no step-!y-step instructions are available. The claimants essenntially entire the system blind, and are left at the mercy of the adjucators. And, even if they win, their victories serve as no use to others.
Anne, my disabled adult child was not injured by a vaccine but by an actual disease a few years before a vaccine to prevent it was available. Um, Greg, where is the no-fault program like NVICP for those kids injured by an illness?
I must be on my way shortly, and only have a few more posts. I must say I don't know why you get so huffy with me. Indeed, I will humbly admit that what I say hear is nothing new -- you have heard it before. Not so much from other anti-vaxxers. But, are they not those dirty, dark secrets in the back of your heads that you dare not echo aloud -- even when you are alone? Do I not serve as a wonderful catharsis experience?
@87 - 'I spend...'
(BTW -- post #87 esseentially is a mess because I was typing from a phone)
If there were a concession (as opposed to merely a settlement), which I don’t know offhand, it would have been on the part of the respondent, i.e., the government in the person of (the Secretary of) HHS, not the court per se.
Thanks, I hadn't understood that it worked the same as other courts, that makes things a lot clearer.
Incidentally, mum has the same mutation.
That's interesting, as it means unequivocally that the vaccines could not have caused the mitochondrial disorder. The Wikipedia article says:
Another unclear aspect of Hannah's case is whether the vaccines she received caused her mitochondrial disease, or whether her mitochondrial disease caused an underlying disorder which was then aggravated by vaccines. Hannah's mother, Terry Poling, has stated that "The government chose to believe the first theory," but added that "We don’t know that she had an underlying disorder."
The reference for this paragraph is this New York Times article from 2008, which states (my emphasis), just before the direct quote from Ms Poling:
There are two theories about what happened to Hannah, said her mother, Terry Poling. The first is that she had an underlying mitochondrial disorder that vaccinations aggravated. The second is that vaccinations caused this disorder.
So, it seems to me that by "this disorder", Terry Poling meant Hannah's developmental disorder, not her mitochondrial disease. I think Wikipedia needs a correction.
Have anyone been able to discern the actual status of the "Canary Party?" Are they are registered political party? A PAC? A 503?
You'd think, if they were actually acting as a political organization or lobby, that they would be required to be registered somewhere as such, correct?
Yes Krebiozen I agree. While of course the anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines can alter one's genome; they in fact, do not. It makes me cringe when a parent claims that "vaccines caused my child's mito disorder" because it "worked" for the Polings. But we know that vaccines can't cause the disorder and they have never even had the child tested.
Well, their donation page doesn't tell us much - no mention of tax deductions. Interestingly, they link to ANH USA, which does mention a tax deductible legal fund. That also tells me that their legislative tomfoolery is not entirely original- ANH( all locales) is most likely the model for this crap.
Didn't someone here say that they were somehow registered at least in one state? Minnesota, I believe.
On a lighter note:
I just recalled something hilarious:
during Mark Blaxill's recent interview with Linderman ( see Linderman Unleashed/ NaturalNews or Jake's site), he confessed that perhaps his group/s should now engage in "protests" to get more attention-
he gave an example that at the last meeting, he and his posse wore yellow Canary Party shirts emblazoned with a crank motto and "turned their backs" on the committee.
Oh how symbolically evocative!
What's next? Performance art? Flash mobs?
Here's an example of a canary party protest.
Check the first two seconds. There's a big pillar between them and Kathleen Sebelius. She couldn't see them. They were protesting for the camera, not to send a real message to Sibelius.
The canary party is in Minnesota, Jennifer Larson's home state.
@IRM - wow, those donations are just "pouring" in aren't they?
Hi! I'm not anti-vaccine quack, but I'm curious what you think of these studies:
"A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI."
"Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period."
"Metal ions potently affected IGF-1 and dopamine-stimulated MS activity, as well as folate-dependent phospholipid methylation: Cu(2+) promoted enzyme activity and methylation, while Cu(+), Pb(2+), Hg(2+) and Al(3+) were inhibitory. The ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal inhibited both IGF-1- and dopamine-stimulated methylation with an IC(50) of 1 nM and eliminated MS activity. Our findings outline a novel growth factor signaling pathway that regulates MS activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions, including DNA methylation. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins."
"Cells hypersensitive to thimerosal also had higher levels of oxidative stress markers, protein carbonyls, and oxidant generation. This suggests certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal."
"By applying Hill's criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the in- crease in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r = 0.92, p b 0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven West- ern countries, particularly at 3–4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89–0.94, p=0.0018–0.0248)."
"Conclusions: Our study suggests that HPV vaccines containing HPV-16L1 antigens pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies."
Thanks in advance for any insight!
Apropos of nothing in particular, it appears that "Dr." Mercola's marketing team is in need of creative assistance.
"It was phenomenally stupid there, but Gerg actually managed to turn it up to 11"
I skip over his comments and eventually stop reading the threads he trolls altogether. But I saw your quote.
Damn the Court of Federal claims for sealing all cases. Except, of course, for the hundreds (thousands) freely available as published or unpublished decisions on their website. And all those cases on lexis-nexis.
How could Greg know that, with the layers of obfuscation? A quick Google search and you are there. And what magic must NYU have wrought to find 83 cases where autistics were compensated. I guess Greg skipped reading the "unanswered questions" paper.
This is a case where the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln comes to play. Better he kept his mouth closed. Then again, Greg removed all doubt a long time ago.
Thank you Narad, I now have a promotional code for 10% off on snake oil. However, I doubt my book title suggestion will see the light of day.
"@IRM – wow, those donations are just “pouring” in aren’t they?"
It's a bit of "I'll donate to my party so it can pay for my travel" isn't it? And since they've split with their largest donor (Barry Segal), their future prospects don't look so good. But as long as Jen Larson has deep pockets it will appear to be a viable yet tiny political movement.
The more time I spent with you drug-dealers the better I get at catching on to your ploys.
I'm not sure that pointing out that you're full of shıt can be characterized as a "ploy," Gerg.
At your post #79, we see the ‘tried and tested’ tactic of misrepresenting your opinions argument, and responding with a wealth of counter arguments, rebutting the misrepresented argument.
Gerg, if you think that I am "arguing" with you, you are laboring under a rather severe misconception. Do you understand this, Gerg?
Lost in the whole affair — and deliberately so — is the validity of your opponents real argument.
No, Gerg, I think I captured the aroma of your borrowed fantasy world at its juice-laden peak of ripeness.
Narad, both you and I know that the benefit of precedent setting cases does not extend from them serving as a model for ensuing flimsy claims based on them
You don't know what "precedent" means, Gerg. You should have realized there was a problem when you got to "both you and I."
The benefit of precedent cases is that they provide a precise procedural model for other cases to emulate. And it’s reasonable to expect that those cases that do, will also be victorious.
In regards to the Poling case serving as a precedent, indeed we would not expect everyone to waltz into court claiming mitochondrial disorder and expect to win.
What we would expect is that if such a case was presented in civil court rather than conceded in NVICP, no doubt expert witnesses woulf have been called upon. Sciientific evidence would have also been presented.
No, Gerg, that's what you woulf expect. People who are capable of analogical reasoning might expect a similar outcome.
And, should the case still go on to win (which I believe it would have)
Yes, Gerg, you "believe" many things. They don't seem to have been working out well for you, Gerg.
such evidence would have gone in the public records — essentially providing a prescription for other prospective claimants to follow.
Gerg, would you do me a favor, please, Gerg? Go over to PACER and find a post-HIPAA exhibit containing the medical records of a minor child for me, Gerg. I'll wait, Gerg.
Narad simply put, those claimants would have step-by-step instructions on how to launch a successful case.
This quite literally doesn't mean anything, Gerg. Did you also fail, Gerg, to understand the bit about class actions?
As it stands, Narad, with NVICP not allowing scientic evidence
Gerg, the Daubert standard is loosened before the Special Masters. Please try to figure out what this means, Gerg.
and having the options to seal records after a decision,
Gerg, in case you don't bother with the task kindly requested of you above, viz., demonstrating that the medical records of minor children are just left lying around after a court case for any slapdıck such as yourself, Gerg, to try to get off on, I feel compelled to remind you that any court similarly situated would have "the options to seal records."
no step-!y-step instructions are available.
This still doesn't mean anything, Gerg. Perhaps I should explain this for you some more. It is the null set, Gerg. The "step-!y-step instructions" that exist in your deliquescent imagination, Gerg, are less well fleshed out than the business plan of the underpants gnomes.
The claimants essenntially entire the system blind, and are left at the mercy of the adjucators.
Gerg, there is an entire cottage industry of lawyers who specialize in representing claims before the Special Masters. They are guaranteed to have their expenses covered, Gerg. Did you forget this, Gerg? Do you suppose, Gerg, that they have their memories wiped clean at the end of every case?
And, even if they win, their victories serve as no use to others.
You still don't understand what "precedent" means, Gerg. It was awfully nice of you to demonstrate it again in such painstaking detail, though.
You are tittering death in life, Gerg.
I too, now have a 10% discount on Mercola's snake oil.
My suggestion for Mercola's next book?
"Joe Mercola's Career Guide For Selling Snake Oil"
@IRB - I did notice that....also that the primary donors are also the people running the organization - seems much less grass roots and more like a way to spend a bunch of money on travel and such, and not have to pay taxes on it......actually, Wakefield has done much better on his so-called "defense funds" than the "Canary Party" has done raising money (despite a supposedly more broad agenda).
Time to quake in yer boots, pharma shills and minions!
Louis Conte speculates about why Issa postponed the inquiry:
pharma got to him- they were apparently "terrified" of what Holland et al had to say. ( AoA). Offit, PIsani and Dorit were mentioned by name. ( Take a bow, Ms R)
Mike Adams begins to reveal what his earth-shattering January announcement will involve:
1 he currently is the proud owner of ICP-MS, HPLC and other stuff: he runs a "university-level investigative lab"
2 he lauds the work of ACAM which will be the future-he will make a major contribution.
" All hands on deck, Paradigm Shift ahead!"
AND..... I. Rony Meter,
Didn't you get the memo?
I neither a hand-held "device" nor a phone
BUT a full-sized
( 66" tall) Android. Deal with it.
Louis Conte speculates about why Issa postponed the inquiry: pharma got to him- they were apparently “terrified” of what Holland et al had to say. ( AoA).
So, they're accusing Issa of being bought *snort* Funny, how NOW that would be an issue for them. I guess the buyer matters more than the buyee.
Is there a name for when someone takes Dunning-Kruger up to 11?
But you must realise that none of this un-gawdly influence is direct : they work through surrogates like "not-for-profit pro-vaccine advocacy" front groups .And universities and medical societies.
Right. Wheels within wheels.
It never stops and never will. I could narrate similar plot-lines that go back to the 1970s about pharma and corporate manoeuvring to damage the reputations of brave, woo-meisterly mavericks who DARED to tell the Truth but were followed, theatened, had their careers sabotaged and were marginalised JUST prior to their well-deserved mainstream acceptance and their work's transformative influence on science and culture at large.
Duning-Kruger @ 11 is a/k/a "Jake.
I saw that post written by Lou Conte, "lead researcher" (ex cop/parent of autistic triplets), on Mary Holland's dreadful study.
Conte attributes the "indefinite postponement" of the latest sham Congressional hearing to *Big Pharma* and *Big Pharma's agents* (Dorit Reiss, Amy Pisani and Paul Offit).
I would like to point your attention to comment 101. Does anyone have any idea what these studies signify? I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, but this is clearly not 'snake oil'. It is rather curious, isn't it?
What do you make of it?
#101 FRED W. sez: "Hi! I’m not anti-vaccine quack, but I’m curious what you think of these studies..."
Citing Tomljenovic and Shaw’s works? SURE you're not anti-vaccine! Just put "Tomljenovic" into the search function here for astute analysis and take-downs of Tomljenovic and Shaw’s papers.
Fair enough. And the others?
And Just Nuts, calm down. I'm not anti-vaccine. I used to work at Novartis in clinical trials developing vaccines. I'm just a curious citizen and I am looking for helpful feed back from a reputable source.
Fred W. #101 and #114
Hi! I’m not anti-vaccine quack, but I’m curious what you think of these studies:
"Just asking questions" Fred? I suspect otherwise, but perhaps I misjudge you.
All those studies have been discussed here before - use the search function at the top and you should find the discussions. All of the researchers involved appear to have started with the firm conviction that vaccines cause health problems and then did their best to torture the data into supporting their preconceived beliefs. This is not how science should be done.
Briefly, the studies finding correlations between vaccination and autism or other conditions are very poorly designed and fail to control for obvious confounders. For example a vaccinated child is far more likely to attend well baby clinics where signs of developmental delay are more likely to be noticed. If you control for factors like this the apparent correlations disappear.
Particularly silly is the Tomljenovic study that looked at average exposure to aluminum in vaccines in different countries and found a correlation with autism. The number of possible confounding factors here is mind-boggling. If you looked at the amount spent on health care, the number of televisions per home or any number of other markers of affluence I expect you would find the same thing. Diagnosis of autism is a luxury that many developing countries are too busy dealing with children dying of infectious diseases to avail themselves of at present.
As I recall, the study looking at thimerosal poisoning mitochondria used concentrations of thimerosal considerably higher than the highest blood concentrations of mercury seen after vaccination with thimerosal-containing-vaccines.
I wouldn't take these studies too seriously. I recommend the Institute of Medicine's report on vaccine safety published earlier this year. They looked very closely at all the available evidence and assessed its quality, concluding that, "Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death".
Delong is discussed ">here.
The Gallagher study looks at boys born and after before the introduction of routine hepatitis B vaccination and finds more autism in those born after it was introduced. Since we know that autism diagnoses were increasing during this period this should really come as no surprise to anyone. It really is as foolish as I describe, and is discussed at LBRB here.
But 'Poe's law', I am not in any way being sarcastic. Yes I am new to this forum so I shall look closely at your suggestions. (Believe me if you wanted a fight I do have the coconuts to give you one and not just in pedantic ones and zeros lol)
But here's another one that's been stumping me. If all of these studies can be debunked and their authors - scientists - are quacks, then what do you suppose is their motivation to keep publishing them?
Sorry, the first link looks broken but isn't. I haven't got time to look at the others Fred posted, but they are equally execrable.
@ Fred W.:
Perhaps they want to be the highly anticipated *One-to-Overturn-Scientific-Consensus* and initiate the much-heralded Paradigm Shift.
And contarianism seems to be going around in the age of internet access yielding instant crank flocking phenomena.
@ Fred W.
are quacks, then what do you suppose is their motivation to keep publishing them?
Also, money, fame amongst the anti-vaccine fringe. How many biomed treatments for autism are based on the hypothesis that autism is actually heavy-metal poisioning? Toxins? Any other evil additive put in there and covered up by Shadow Agency of the Week? Orac and frequently discussed actual COIs with many of these authors and their ties to anti-vax groups.
There's also the aspect of pure faith-based stubborness. They've convinced themselves and look to find a way to make it fit, rather than looking at the data and seeing what it actually means.
Please forgive the wariness. Many people come here with a very similar approach (usually with a lot more studies) but it quickly becomes clear that they are not here for a reasoned debate at all. As soon as the shortcomings of the studies they point to are pointed out they accuse us of being Big Pharma shills, among various other insults.
If all of these studies can be debunked and their authors – scientists – are quacks, then what do you suppose is their motivation to keep publishing them?
I think that many of them have been sucked into the antivaccine movement, and truly believe what they are attempting to prove. This is where cognitive biases come into play. Somehow they manage to ignore or explain away the large amount of evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Others see an opportunity to get support and money - are you familiar with any of the antivaccine websites? Age of Autism is a good example, it's full of paranoid conspiracy theories and misinformation about vaccines and autism; a lunatic fringe website that attracts cranks like flies. The author of one of the studies you posted here, Gayle Delong, has written at least one article for AoA, indeed her article is promoting that very study. Any study author that is happy to be linked with AoA should be viewed with very great suspicion, and their publications given extra-intense scrutiny, in my opinion.
* Orac and others
@Fred - those studies have been discussed in detail here. If you use the search function, you'll be able to find those posts.
Thanks! This is great! This is just what I've been looking for.
Sorry to be late to the party - looks like I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I frequent those websites. It's just this anti-anti-vax has been a meme of Facebook for a while and I decided to do some quick homework and turned up the above studies. I was quite shocked really. I did not expect to find anything like it since everyone keeps saying it's all snake oil this and snake oil that. So I couldn't imagine why doctors and scientists would waste their training, time, education, on sheer claptrappery.
I've worked with these folks at Norvatis, and most recently at Medivation. They take their work seriously. And yes, profit, reputation, and ego are involved. But I wouldn't call any of them quacks or their work excrement.
I guess it reminds me of that Jacque Derrida quote: "The problem is not that there is no truth, but that there are too many truths."
Our dilemma seems to me that we have to vigilantly tease out the true Truth from the not-so-true Truth. If that makes any sense.
If all of these studies can be debunked and their authors – scientists – are quacks, then what do you suppose is their motivation to keep publishing them?
I don't know what the motivation is for the publishers (other than to fill empty pages), but the motivation for the authors might include expense-paid junkets to warm sunny places:
Fair enough. And the others?
If you want the full discussion with links to where they were torn apart start here:
I personally thought the DeLong one was hilarious. There you have a university business professor telling us that all kids getting speech language intervention in school are automatically considered autistic. Which would have been a big surprise to the teachers and sign language interpreters at the deaf/hard of hearing program that was part of my kids' elementary school.
A few things to you need to know when checking out a study:
1. What are the qualifications of the authors. Do they have the appropriate education and experience in that field. As you can see, this would eliminate papers written by lawyers, business majors, journalists, computer scientists, etc.
2. What is their reputation? One quick thing is to see if their right to practice medicine has been legally removed (Geier, Wakefield, Fudenberg).
3. Who funded the study? Be suspicious of anything funded by a group with an agenda. That includes SafeMinds, Dwoskin Family Foundation, etc.
5. Are the papers published in reputable journals, or even appropriate journals. Why would a journal on inorganic chemistry publish a biological study? And the last one on the SaneVax website was published in the notorious "pay to publish" OMICS group: OMICS Publishing Group Makes A Billion Dollar Threat.
I hope that helps. Also, you really should learn to use the search box on this page.
Chris - excellent!
(despite the sarcastic rib at the end lol)
So my next question is: Why not take Thimerosal out of vaccines entirely? Wouldn't that more or less end the debate in one fell swoop?
No, taking out Thimerosal out of vaccines entirely wouldn't end the debate, because the anti-vaccine crowd will find something else to blame.
Thimerosal is used for conservation (at least I think it is), so there are instances when it is neccesary.
I suppose someone who is more knowledgable can correct me if I'm wrong and add some more information.
Fred W., because there is really no reason to remove thimerosal completely. In the quantities used it is safe, and in those that have it as a trace the use was during manufacturing of the vaccine to prevent bacterial contamination.
The USA, Europe, Canada and other industrial countries have removed thimerosal in vaccines for children. But that means using single use syringes, and that increases the cost. Also, there is a problem with storing vaccines so they remain safe. This is something that is not feasible in developing countries, especially after a disaster (like Haiti or the Philippines).
And no, it would not end the debate. Every single pediatric vaccine has had a thimerosal-free version for over a decade, yet they still rage about it. Then they move the goalposts to aluminum, or some other ingredient they do not understand.
Some papers (many which have been discussed on this website):
Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):656-64. Epub 2010 Sep 13.
Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism
Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82
Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292
Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
On the last one, Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds was a consultant and helped with the design, but was very unhappy with the results.
Aha Chris you're coming through!
Ok looks like I've sussed out enough from you guys to feel satisfied. Gotta hit that search box, and got a heck of a lot of reading to do now.
But here’s another one that’s been stumping me. If all of these studies can be debunked and their authors – scientists – are quacks, then what do you suppose is their motivation to keep publishing them?
I think that a part of it is also the simple fact that they are quacks--i.e., they're incapable of understanding why what they're publishing falls short of being evidence for a causal association. If they weren't they would have spotted the holes pointed out at liz ditz's typepad site themselevs and never have submitted the papers in teh first place.
Also, some have financial motivations. Some of those papers include people who are petitioners in the NVICP and were trying to create papers to support their court cases. That would include Poling, DeLong, and Laura Hewitson, who concluded with her study that it is "normal" for the amygdalas of infant monkeys to shrink!
Others are the "quacks" who are either trying to sell a new "treatment" or are professional witnesses with studies to prop up their testimony. The Geiers were notorious for that latter with their "chemical castration with Lupron" treatment and their legal shenanigans: Is Mark Geier finished as an expert witness in the vaccine court?.
It was always a very weird case the anti-vaxxers made. I recall them arguing that Granite Bay and Brick Township were the sites of clusters of vaccine injury. None of them even paused to break wind and consider how standardised, ubiquitous products essentially used by everyone could be implicated by such clusters.
Then when the burden of thimerosal in the population went through the floor and autism diagnoses continued through the roof, they were still unperturbed.
And even the sharp differences in incidence between states never leads any of them to ask how this can be if it does not evidence that incidence is, in some large measure, an artifact of social/political/resource factors.
They are entirely impervious to reason: some because they lack the education and understanding of public affairs, some because they are making money and selling products, and some because they are good old fashioned cranks.
(Let's see if Orac will take another day to post this comment. Did your hear that, Orac? That's discrimination against anti-vaxxers!)
Bravo drug-dealers! Fred W was about to fall for the spell of disinformation and lies being spread on the Net, but you saved him. He was so grateful for your help-- I could not help feeling moved! Chris, when you cautioned him to be wary of vested interest funding studies, does this include pharma's vaccine studies?
Yet, seriously guys -- who is writing these scripts? It's such a burning curiosity that if you fess up, I will be so pleased that I promise not to tell anyone. It will be our little secret. (Hee hee hee.)
I won't argue anymore with you about whether civil court is better for vaccine injured claimants. I will leave the topic with this simply question:
Again, if pharma is not afraid of civil court because they are still likely to win in this venue -- and even have their legal fees paid to boot, and if the parents want civil court then what's the fuss? Everyone is in agreement, so why not have civil court?
Memorable Fred W quotes:
"I’m not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV..."
"I’m just a curious citizen and I am looking for helpful feed back from a reputable source."
"(Believe me if you wanted a fight I do have the coconuts to give you one and not just in pedantic ones and zeros lol)"
"Sorry to be late to the party – looks like I have a lot of catching up to do. I’m definitely not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I frequent those websites. It’s just this anti-anti-vax has been a meme of Facebook for a while and I decided to do some quick homework and turned up the above studies."
"Aha Chris you’re coming through!"
"Chris – excellent!"
also -- not said but was thinking about it...
"Way to hit the ball out of the park, Chris! Go Chris...Go Chris!! Who dat? OOOHH Yeah!"
Fred W. -
To answer your question, I would say, look at Andrew Wakefield. Look at all the things he was guilty of, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and then look at how he is still regarded as some sort of hero by most of the anti-vax crowd.
I mean, pretend for a moment that you didn't have a conscience to get in the way. Now imagine that you can get away with all that Wakefield got away with. You can double-bill the government, getting paid through the Legal Aid Board to perform procedures that were already covered by the NHS. You can lie and deny that you have any competing interest relevant to your claims about MMR, even though you know damn well that your pay from lawyer Richard Barr is a competing interest - and you yourself are telling people that you stand to profit handsomely from your patented single vaccine if public confidence in MMR is damaged!
You can do all that and more and after your dishonesty is revealed to the entire world, still have fans who fundraise gleefully for you, calling you "Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled into one."
How could there not be at least some "doctors" and "scientists" in the world who'd want to get a piece of that action? If you've got a flexible conscience, you can make an entire career from just ... telling people what they want to hear. Perhaps some of the VCA gurus actually do believe the stories they tell, but ... to ask why anyone would persist with the VCA party line after it's been scientifically discredited is like asking why someone would pass bills they know to be counterfeit.
Chris, when you cautioned him to be wary of vested interest funding studies, does this include pharma’s vaccine studies?
Please give examples of these so-called "pharma studies".
if pharma is not afraid of civil court because they are still likely to win in this venue
Operative word "likely", not "guaranteed". May I remind you that companies who made sillicone breast implants were bankrupted by lawsuits on evidence that turned out to be false?
and even have their legal fees paid to boot, and if the parents want civil court then what’s the fuss?
Um, will they have their legal fees paid? If an unsuccessful plaintiff has no assets, how will the defendant/s recover its/their lawyers fees?
For the record, Greg is on moderation (not banned) because he posted off-topic stuff, and threatened to post off-topic *more.*.
It has nothing to do with his views, which he's well aware of.
I suppose Greg wants to be banned, so he can complain about censorship. He seems to want to be some kind of martyr for "free speech".
Funny thing is, people who are complaining most about censorship on this and other pro-science sites, are mostly coming from sites that really apply censorship to contrarian opinions, sometimes letting one person giving a contrarian opinion, as some sort of excuse, not for a real debate. Mostly that person serves as some kind of prey, thrown in a roudle of wolves.
" if pharma is not afraid of civil court because they are still likely to win in this venue"
"Operative word “likely”, not “guaranteed”. May I remind you that companies who made sillicone breast implants were bankrupted by lawsuits on evidence that turned out to be false?"
So indeed, you are conceding that the NVICP venue is more friendly to pharma!
Julian, Julian -- where is your head at? You just undid the laborious efforts of Narad, Anne, and Dorit over the last few days to show that not dismantling the NVICP is not about protecting pharma, but the parents.
Again Orac, Julian is too honest. His autism makes him prone to give away the company's secrets. I suggest that you moderate all his comments before he causes further damage.
In between your incessant 'he is a quack...she is a crank...they are losers for buying into conspiracy theories' diatribe, perhaps you may want to give it a little break and address real issues that are important to the autism community. I know this is supposed to be a science blog, but since you spend so much time discussing autism indirectly, how about providing more helpful information on a disability that is devastating a generation of kids and their families. Perhaps this may buy RI a little more legitimacy (hee hee hee).
Notice how AoA often provides stories about preventing wandering, and finding lost autistic children.
Seriously Orac, have you are any of your minions stopped for a second and reflected that Avonte is still missing, and how you would be destroyed if any of your loved ones were in such a predicament?
Just here to help, Orac!
Julian, Julian — where is your head at? You just undid the laborious efforts of Narad, Anne, and Dorit over the last few days to show that not dismantling the NVICP is not about protecting pharma, but the parents.
Julian did no such thing. You need to learn to read and make inference like the grown-ups, Greg. Did you not see what Julian said about companies bankrupt on FALSE allegations? You quoted that part of his answer...so no, your arguments that the NVICP blindly looks out for companies whilst leaving poor parents out in the cold is not accurate.
Avonte is still missing, and I would thank you to not assume we don't know the anguish of searching for a missing loved one. You see, that's part of the issue with groups like AoA, GR, and the like...you assume that no one else could possibly know what YOU suffer through, which gives you legitimacy. And I'll also thank you to remember that while I feel for Avonte's family, the person I feel for most is Avonte. That seems to be something many can't comprehend.
You know, the vaccine program is designed to protect all of you anti-vaccines. If we have 5000 parents doing baseless claims in civic court against the manufacturers of vaccine, it will result in the bankruptcy of several medication makers, not just the end of the vaccine program and with that, a price hike of 10x to 100x for the remaining medication because of the liabilities involved into making medication.
Can you just imagine what would happen to your medical procedure if the medication is 10x more expensive? how about 20 x, or 50x. Just imagine an appendix removal surgery where the cost of fentanyl is 15x more expensive and you are restricted to 2 days of fentanyl by your insurance provider can't pay for more. Hello Pain.
Antibiotics now? how about 1000$ per prescription bottle of antibiotics for that run of pertussis....Hello insurance price hike.
do you actually want 90% of the population turned against you Greg for causing a massive price hike of medication, limited capacities and the return of infectious disease.
Do you actually want that Greg.
@Alain - I believe the short answer is that he doesn't care....actually, I seriously doubt we'd be seeing mass bankruptcies of companies - more likely, you'd see the mass bankruptcies of the families first...followed by mass dismissal of their claims.
Since the Science doesn't exist (meaning no evidence) I would imagine most, if not all the "autism - vaccine" cases wouldn't even make it out of the initial motions hearings.
@Alain - and these are the same companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year on research, on the hope that a handful of the thousands of drugs they research will make it through the regulatory process.....they do have incredibly deep pockets....which is why the non-adversarial system in the Vaccine Court is so beneficial to the families that bring legitimate cases - and even those that bring "illegitimate" cases get their lawyers' fees paid.....it is both a win-win, and a no lose set-up.
Some people just want to win, regardless of the actual evidence....those people are the ones trying to tear down the system, not realizing how much of a disadvantage it would put them in.
Did someone just say bankruptcy of pharma and the end of the vaccination program? Just who would want that ?? (Hee hee hee.)
Anyway drug-dealers, I am spending too much time with you, and I must attend to other stuff. Denice, I did promise that I would take the time to address you, but I must concede that I am no longer up for it. Please don't take this as much of an insult, but the truth. What interest I once had in you has evaporated into complete boredom. I would sooner waste my time psycho-analysing PGP.
PGP: Now there is the classic, young, thin, supermodel type with a whole world of problems. My heart goes out to her!
Did someone just say bankruptcy of pharma and the end of the vaccination program? Just who would want that ??
No rational person. certainly, as it would place both themselves and their loved ones at greatly increased risk of suffering and death due to vaccine preventable infectious diseases(pertussis, mups, measles, polio, tetanus, etc.)
I suspect therefore that you'd find this scenario very appealing.
If the Vaccine Court went away I don't think we'd see mass bankruptcies of either the pharma companies or the families. Instead I think we'd see pharma companies abandoning vaccine development and production en mass.
Recall the court was initially created when lawsuits against makers of pertussis vaccines caused all but one manufacturer to cease producing the vaccine (and that last one was preparing to do the same.)
Here is a perfect example of where the anti-vax narrative falls apart completely.....
The are now claiming that vaccines cause encephalopathy, which is I guess now the "true cause of autism." Of course, we know that is bunk, but worse, we also know (for a FACT) that the diseases that vaccines prevent, such as Measles, Mumps and a host of others, do cause encephalitis at rates that can exceed 1 in 1000 cases....so, if these anti-vaxxers truly believed what they speak, then they would be encouraging more encephalitis by working against vaccines.....
Of course, that is but one of many disconnects in their thinking...another, of course, is that these diseases were (and are) in fact mild & our parents and grandparents weren't overly concerned about it....which ignores that, before vaccines, these diseases were, for the most part, inevitable. Parents could do little or nothing to prevent their children from suffering through Measles or Mumps, so they just endured the best that they could - and had to accept the sometimes severe side-effects, including Death, because they could do nothing else.
Pox Parties weren't designed to be fun - they were done to make sure kids were exposed to the disease at an age where potential side-effects could be minimized (though not eliminated) to prevent recurrence in adulthood, where the disease was known to be much more harmful.
And there is Rubella - a disease that we know can cause the development of autism & historically has been responsible for the death of tens of thousands of babies and the permanent disability of many more.....again, something the anti-vax crew seems to ignore.
All in all, it does seem possible for the anti-vax groups to hold completely dissimilar or even mutually-exclusive theories as to the dangers of vaccines, speak about them at the same time, and completely ignore the effects of the diseases that have been prevented (and of course, the mountains of Science - like these studies: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf) and show that their ideas are completely without merit.
Operative word “likely”, not “guaranteed”. May I remind you that companies who made sillicone breast implants were bankrupted by lawsuits on evidence that turned out to be false?
Last I checked, 3M, Baxter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Dow Chemical, and Dow Corning were doing just fine. The latter was in Chapter 11 for a while, and this basically had no effect on its business other than halting and ultimately resolving the litigation (at quite low settlement amounts), which, again, points straight back to asbestos in the mass tort department.
I'll repeat: Those who think civil court is would represent an overall win for potential plaintiffs are delusional. The best-case scenario for them is a couple of jackpots and crumbs for everyone else.
There is another question to ponder: Where's all the successful litigation outside the U.S.? For that matter, where's the litigation at all? I don't have the time to search high and low, but the only things popping out are the filings of the Morin and Snell Gardasil cases in Canada and Australia, respectively.
@Narad - civil litigation is rare outside of the US, because many countries (particularly in Europe) either have standardized means for compensating claims (like Italy, for example, where damages are pre-set based on the injury) or the loser is forced to pay all legal fees (which is a huge incentive for arbitration or working out differences before it gets to litigation).
Working in the field that I do, I can tell you that Civil Litigation are hugely expensive, time-consuming, and really only keep the trial lawyers happy.
The Vaccine Court extends every courtesy and benefit to the plaintiffs, to a fault, almost - since individuals like the Geiers were able to testify (until they made fools of themselves) and even received a measure of payment.....
I bet, if you ask the families that did receive compensation through the Court, if they could choose to do everything over again in a Civil Court, you wouldn't find a whole lot of takers.
All of the anti-vax opinions here are based on a faulty premise to start...so all of their downstream opinions aren't worth the protons they are printed on.
To paraphrase Orac - it is always Zebras (no, its always Unicorns)....never horses...for these people.
I'll give ya another memorable quote:
Go burp a dick.
I won’t argue anymore with you about whether civil court is better for vaccine injured claimants.
You can't "argue with" someone who is merely ridiculing you on the grounds of the screamingly obvious, Gerg.
I will leave the topic with this simply question:
Again, if pharma is not afraid of civil court because they are still likely to win in this venue
Corporations don't solicit lawsuits, Gerg, just as nobody solicits your presence, even at AoA.
— and even have their legal fees paid to boot,
The U.S. doesn't have a loser-pays rule, dumbass.
and if the parents want civil court then what’s the fuss?
I have already opined that it'd be fine by me, but you apparently only come around to fondle yourself in front of a mirror, Gerg, so you must have missed that. One trick, though, Gerg: Only one bite at the apple. You want to file in civil court? It comes first, and the OSM is permanently foreclosed as an option.
Everyone is in agreement,
"Everyone"? Loss of boundaries, Gerg, or ideas of reference?
so why not have civil court?
Gerg, it would certainly f*ck over a number of legitimate claimants, for one thing, but apparently, Gerg, you were once again too f*cking Gerg-stupid to pick up on the part where I observed that in the first place.
Working in the field that I do, I can tell you that Civil Litigation are hugely expensive, time-consuming, and really only keep the trial lawyers happy.
Oh, trust me, I know. It was a long time ago, but the senior named partner rhymes with "loam." Perhaps you've heard of them.
@Narad - too true, just having come from a conference dedicated to the field (technology-wise) the costs can be truly staggering, though manageable by corporations - for the individual, not so much.....
^ (Well, "senior" in the sense of "most recently deceased"; it was a long time ago.)
Just got back on the internet after a visit to the doctor and a sleep. Thank You AnObservingParty for pointing out and correcting Greg's mendacious twisting of my words.
Greg: Shut up. You know nothing about me, and in light of Narad's comment, I don't even want you talking to me, you creep-tastic plastic waste-of-space.
PGP, ignore Greg. He is just a creepy troll, and not worth your time or anger. I don't even read what he writes, even though I notice he types my name in some posts.
Boring troll is boring
Wow!!! If the people that spew all of this hate and venom against anti vacciners would take the same time to diligently research both sides as well as the real unbiased, un paid for science behind these vaccines they would see the truth. Oh the smallness of these minds. Please people look inside and find love and spread it to the ends of the earth. If you really knew what was and is going on behind the scenes of this big film production called reality, you would become so sad and infuriated. Most people could not handle the truth. The creator has to be so heartbroken watching his creations spread fear, hate, and poison. Back to this disturbing spread of atrocity, Lets just for the sake of it have a honest peer reviewed study done on vaccinated vs unvaccinated children to see which group is more intelligent & healthy. This should end all of the nonsense. By the way Andrew Wakefield and his research have been vindicated. Genuine interest and research would lead you to the truth. If you also follow the fear campaign media coverage about the outbreaks supposedly created by unvaccinated children you would see the strain of most of these viruses are from vaccinated children and not the original virus. Look at the pending lawsuit brought against Merck. Former employees and scientists whistle blow on the intentional spreading of viruses by the company's vaccines to create fear and sell more vaccines. "The last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states. From 1980 through 1999, there were 162 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Of the 162 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV)." This means vaccinated children are spreading much of these outbreaks. If vaccines worked as they should than vaccinated children and their parents should have nothing to fear. Most things we are now getting vaccinated for are not life threatening and natural exposure would create natural immunity which is much better than vaccine related immunity. Why would I subject my child to a drug that could possibly cause them death or a lifetime of health related issues to have them vaccinated by a vaccine that may not even work or will wear off later in life? Follow the money trail and you will see what greed can do to destroy a nation. I guess you guys also think fluoride isn't dangerous either . Ask Hitler about his usage of it against the Jews. For the one that left his opinion on the parents of unvaccinated children, No group can or should be labeled as all being a certain way. No 2 people are the same and its not a fad or trend to jump on the unvaccinated child wagon. Most of us have come to this conclusion based on seeing injured children and family members and have taken many hours to research both sides of the debate. We love our children and want the best care for them. If a natural regimen can give the same outcome as a prescribed medication but without the risky side affects than why not pursue such a means? Common sense can go a long way. One should never be so closed minded as to not allow themselves to change their minds in the face of truth. We once hung and decapitated ancestors for saying the earth was round and not flat. This was the roman catholic church that did this. What if no one ever questioned the truth or took the time to step outside of the box to learn the truth? It is unfortunate that the ones questioning the science behind what is being forced into their children's veins are being demonized by society I wish all that read this love and health and ask you to look into your child's eyes and ask yourself if they deserve better and for you to put your pride aside and really seek the truth! .
Wow Douglas....would you like some dressing for your word salad?
And of course he would be unable to establish even one of his many statements as true.
I think that's the Quack Bingo cover-all, right there.
@AOP - yes, two times is a charm, a third rant would win Quack Trifecta of the week.....
Woo Hat Trick.
I went to a holiday camp once, and people also gave sessions on creative writing, yoga, and subjects from photography to what have you.
One guy was a doctor of chiropractic - and he gave a talk as to why you shouldn't vaccinate your children. Basically, the talk was full of s**t. When I asked about "why -- we have virtually eradicated polio here in the U.S.. The only known cases seem to be with non-vaccinated populations, such as found on some Indian reservations, and perhaps a religious colony or two in Europe. In Cuba, where vaccination is mandatory - no occurrences of the disease. In India, where it isn't - it's still rampant."
The answer = "Oh, it's not really polio. It's a form of meningitis. Yeah, that's it. Meningitis."
Long story short - if one or two kids out of 30 don't get vaccinated and never get these diseases, they use this as "proof". But the reason the one or two non-vac kids don't get sick, Is because there isn't a significant population that is opportunistic for the disease to manifest. In plain English - if 99 out of 100 kids are vaccinated against polio -- its unlikely the disease is gonna get there and so another kid's not gonna catch the disease, and pass it to your kid.
But if these koo-koos generate enough support - and people stop inoculating their kids - if enough do so - we will welcome the diseases back into our population and boy, is it gonna cost us plenty!
Why would I subject my child to a drug that could possibly cause them death or a lifetime of health related issues to have them vaccinated by a vaccine
Yeah, Douglas, 'cause it's not like the vaccine-preventable diseases ever cause children death or a lifetime of health related issues ...
said NO ONE WITH A CLUE, EVER.
If the people that spew all of this hate and venom against anti vacciners would take the same time to diligently research both sides as well as the real unbiased, un paid for science behind these vaccines they would see the truth.
We have taken the time to do the research, douglas, and the simple fact is that all available evidence indicates that vaccines are safe and effective.
Lets just for the sake of it have a honest peer reviewed study done on vaccinated vs unvaccinated children to see which group is more intelligent & healthy.
A prospective vaxed versus un-vaxed study cannot ethically be done, douglas. Fortunately it isn’t necessary to do so, since large scale retrospective epidemiologic studies can and have been done which demonstrate that the risks associated with being vaccinated are orders of magnitude lower than the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection in their absence.
` By the way Andrew Wakefield and his research have been vindicated.
Not that I’m aware of: citation needed.
“The last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states.
And why do we have to go back to 1979 to find the last case of naturally occurring polio? Because we routinely vaccinate against it. Prior to the development of an effective vaccine the US saw 13,000 to 20,000 cases annually.
The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).” This means vaccinated children are spreading much of these outbreaks.
As a minor point I see no claim made that the children that contracted VAPP were responsible for causing outbreaks of the disease, just that they themselves contracted VAPP. More critically, if we’re we’re going to consider the incidence of VAPP as a measure of vaccine safety we need more information than the number of cases of VAPP which occurred between 1980 and 1999—we must also consider the total number of children who received the vaccine over that 19 year time span, and how many cases of polio occurred annually prior to the development of the vaccine.
it turns out the 154 cases of VAPP represents one case reported for every 2.4 million doses of OPV (see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt12-polio.html) and prior to the development of vaccines there were between 13K and 20K cases of polio in the US annually. Clearly polio vaccination, even given the all but vanishingly small risk (0.0004%) of VAPP is orders of magnitude less risky than remaining vulnerable to infection.
If vaccines worked as they should than vaccinated children and their parents should have nothing to fear.
That’s the nirvana fallacy raising it’s ugly head: vaccines do work as they should but like all real-life preventive measures they are not 100% effective, nor is everyone a suitable candidate for vaccination. That's why maintaining herd immunity by vaccinating eveyone who is a suitable candidat is critical.
Most things we are now getting vaccinated for are not life threatening and natural exposure would create natural immunity which is much better than vaccine related immunity.
Let’s assume that you were correct (you’re not) and for the sake of argument accept that most things we’re vaccinated against are not life threatening.
The only proper response I see to that statement is “Do you have a point? Do you really see no benefit in preventing suffering and adverse outcomes that fall short of death?”
Why would I subject my child to a drug that could possibly cause them death or a lifetime of health related issues to have them vaccinated by a vaccine that may not even work or will wear off later in life?
Because it’s safer to do so than to leave them vulnerable to infections which are far, far more likely to cause death or a lifetime of health related issues.
I guess you guys also think fluoride isn’t dangerous either .
That would depend entirely on the dose of flouride one received, wouldn’t it?
Ask Hitler about his usage of it against the Jews.
“There’s a flag on the field—the referee is signaling a Godwin violation. Loss of down and all the distance to the goal.”
Most of us have come to this conclusion based on seeing injured children and family members and have taken many hours to research both sides of the debate.
Do you seriously believe that your 'many hours of research’ (i.e. time spent googling anti-vax talking points) is comparable to the years of formal study and training pediatricians and immunologist have undergone, such that your understanding of their safety and efficacy is superior to theirs?
If a natural regimen can give the same outcome as a prescribed medication but without the risky side affects than why not pursue such a means?
That would be because your ‘natural regimen’ (remaining vulnerable to infection) does not provide the benefits of immunization with less risk than immunization: it exposes children to far, far greater risk of serious adverse consequences as a consequence of becoming infected.
Common sense can go a long way. One should never be so closed minded as to not allow themselves to change their minds in the face of truth.
I’m more than willing to change my mind if shown evidence demonstrating the risk associated with being vaccinated against any given disease is greater than the risk associated with remaining vulnerable to becoming infected and contracting the disease.
Douglas -- paragraphs are your friend.
(They won't make your post any more accurate or informative but it will be easier to read).