The new book "The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic" is shaking up the autism world. Orthodox scientists and medical groups have dismissed and even ridiculed the idea that incredibly toxic ethyl mercury -- still in flu shots given to infants and pregnant women -- could be linked to the explosion in autism rates beginning in the 1990s, when the vaccine schedule was rapidly expanded. Just the day before the book came out this week, the CDC issued yet another flawed study that found not only was mercury safe -- it actually had a protective effect against the risk of autism. This is obviously absurd, as is the fact that almost all the children in the study had received mercury-containing shots, rather than including a control group without any mercury exposure. Authors Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill -- two names well-known in the autism community and editors of the blog Age of Autism (ageofautism.com), have for the first time traced the roots of autism beginning in the 1930s. What they found is electrifying and suggests the debate is about to heat up again, whether the government and medical industry like it or not.
Deirdre: What is the major point you want people to take away from your book?
Dan: That the concern about mercury and autism is far from over. We found that the medical industry and manufacturing have had a long history of the reckless use of mercury that goes back centuries, and that does include, based on our research, the rise of autism in the 1930s when ethyl mercury was first commercialized in agricultural products and in vaccines. That's the short answer.
Mark: The other thing that we want people to embrace is contained in the title -- this really is The Age of Autism. Autism is the single most devastating childhood disorder any of us have faced in our lifetime -- and it has become a national health emergency. The rates of autism have gone from effectively zero before the 1930s to 1 in 100 children today, and that's happened in the lifetime of a single individual -- in just seven decades. In our book, we've gone back to first principles and identified the roots of the disease itself, and we place mercury exposure and new environmentally toxic products at the source of the explosion.
Deirdre: That certainly is contrary to what mainstream medicine and science is saying, which is that autism is basically a genetic disorder. Many argue that there has been no real increase, that it's just more awareness and better diagnosis. And the courts have ruled against families that have claimed that vaccines cause autism, and just recently shut the final door on those cases.
Mark: That's certainly what some orthodox autism scientists have been saying, but that doesn't make it true. Some of these people, they've made careers of talking a lot, but what they're really saying is basically incoherent blather. The problem is the implications of an epidemic are so profound along so many dimensions, so foundation-shaking that the medical industry and establishment are kind of circling the wagons. But at their core, their arguments make no sense.
Everybody knows someone with autism now and so the broader public is very open to our position now. In reality, it's just a vocal and powerful core that's taking such an extreme position and they're getting a bit desperate and they're raising the bar for uncivil discourse. For our part, we're getting used to being accused of irresponsibility, when in fact, to question the reality of the epidemic is the most profoundly irresponsible thing that somebody who ought to know better could do.
Dan: When you listen to how blithely some in the vaccine development complex, like Paul Offit, insist there's no real increase, you realize the threat to them, because if the rate has exploded starting about 1990 -- which it has -- then medical interventions that have changed over the past 20 years in particular become prime suspects. That's something they really want to take off the table as fast as they can by talking about things like "the return of polio," which no one is seriously proposing.
We can have both an effective public-health program including preventing diseases, and also we can confront the autism epidemic and figure out what's going on and stop it.
Deirdre: Haven't they taken thimerosal out of vaccines and yet the autism rate is still going up?
Mark: That's a common misconception, but it's actually demonstrably false, It's simply not true that they've removed the mercury exposure from infant and fetal vaccines. Mercury has come out of some vaccines. It's still in others, and they've targeted pregnant women with flu shots, and ethyl mercury in pregnancy is even more toxic in pregnancy than it is in infancy.
Dan: Also, we don't argue that mercury is the only thing that can cause autism. It's just very good at it. One overlooked medical report in the 1970s by Mary Coleman, a respected researcher at Georgetown University, found that about 25 percent of autistic children in her sample had parents with occupational exposure to toxic chemicals. The rate in the general population was only 1 percent. She called that difference "startling" and said it begged for more research. But that never happened, as the medical industry started chasing the dream of finding an autism "gene." Billions of dollars later, they've come up empty-handed and increasingly desperate.
Deirdre: The crux of your book is that you say you've found a strong chemical connection, particularly a link to mercury, in the first cases. What is the basis for that?
Dan: Autism was first described in 1943 by Leo Kanner, perhaps the leading child psychiatrist in the country at the time and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He identified 11 children born in the 1930s with the syndrome and described it -- and we think these words are very important -- as differing "markedly and uniquely from anything described so far." In other words, it was new -- and this was the man who had written the landmark textbook, "Child Psychiatry," in 1935 describing every known disorder, but not autism.
So we decided to look more closely at this group of children, who were identified only by a first name and last initial. In this Internet age, we were able to identify 7 of those 11 children -- and what we found was a startling link in those families: both to mercury exposure in general and specifically to the new ethyl mercury compounds that were first commercialized around 1930. There were three initial commercial uses for ethyl mercury -- in agriculture as seed disinfectants and lumber treatment, and in medicine as a preservative in the new diphtheria vaccine.
We identified Case 2 as the son of a plant pathologist who was working with ethyl mercury seed disinfectant dusts at the time his son was born. Imagine what it was like to identify the second case of autism, find his father's archive at North Carolina State, open the first folder, and be staring at an experiment using mercury as a fungicide. Case 3 was the son of a forestry professor who also had exposure to the new lumber treatments. And the mother of Case 7 was a pediatrician who helped pioneer the well-baby visit and whose writings repeatedly refer to the importance of early and frequent vaccination. There are other agricultural and medical links but these really stood out to us.
Deirdre: Couldn't this just be coincidence?
Mark: We think the pattern of evidence is much too strong to be dismissed as pure chance. Kanner's initial case series was a small cluster of 11 children and the mercury link really jumps out. The problem is that Kanner noticed the parents' professional accomplishments and focus and all the working mothers -- many working in the medical industry -- and suggested there were "very few really warm-hearted fathers and mothers" in the entire group. Although he later backed off of that accusation, people like Bruno Bettelheim turned parent-blaming into the prevailing theory of autism causation.
Dan: Then, when it became clear that there was a higher rate of autism in twins, parent-blaming was discredited. But scientists misunderstood the gene studies to conclude that autism was therefore a genetically-determined disorder that could not be prevented or treated. But there are plenty of identical twins who are discordant for autism -- one has it, the other is typical -- and there are also fraternal twins, who are no more identical than they are with other siblings, who both have autism. That suggests some sort of environmental injury in genetically vulnerable children.
Deirdre: What got you going down this road?
Mark: I have an affected daughter, Michaela, which is really the most important motivating force for me. When we first got an autism diagnosis, it was a real wake-up call, I started searching for ways to help her and pretty quickly realized that the stock answers we were hearing from the medical establishment made very little sense, I realized pretty quickly that if we were going to do anything to help Michaela, we were going to have to buck the system because the system was in disarray. In the process, it became obvious to me early on that thimerosal was completely capable of causing the kind of developmental damage that can lead to autism. So I became more and more active scientifically. I've written a number of peer-reviewed papers that have looked at the rising incidence of autism; I also am director of the autism advocacy group SAFE MINDS. Long story short, I eventually realized that the only way to get some of these ideas out there, I needed to take more responsibility myself. I was grateful, though, to run into an investigative journalist like Dan, who wasn't afraid to speak the truth to power and who really had a nose for the truth and a good story.
Dan: I've had a pretty traditional print journalism career. I worked at papers in Illinois and New York and then was an original staff member at USA Today. I ended up at UPI and started investigating a malaria drug that had some really bad side effects, including psychosis and suicidal and homicidal behavior. The strange thing was how rabidly the CDC supported this drug because it was so effective at fulfilling their mission -- disease control. They seemed to overlook, minimize and even hide the truth about the rate and severity of side effects. After we wrote a series about that, my reporting partner Mark Benjamin started looking into whether vaccines -- which certainly prevent disease but some parents believe caused autism -- might have a similar problem.
I picked that thread up and started writing a column called The Age of Autism in 2005. That's when I began looking at the early cases and also at the autism rate in never-vaccinated and less-vaccinated populations like the Amish and patients of Homefirst Medical Services in Chicago and some home-schooled kids. The rate did seem to be lower, but what amazed me the most was that such a study - the autism rate in a never-vaccinated U.S. population -- had never been done. And there seemed to be no interest on the part of public health authorities in doing one. I thought that was -- and is -- suspicious.
I started working with Mark and his aptitude for statistical analysis as well as his passion for finding out what happened really complemented my approach.
Deirdre: Even though you say vaccines weren't the only causes of the early cases and that new compounds may also be causing autism, you've been accused of being anti-vaccine. How do you respond?
Mark: We're for vaccines as part of responsible overall public health policy for children. We're also for safe vaccines, and the fact is that the overall effect of the burgeoning vaccine schedule -- 26 shots with 32 doses of 13 different antigens by two years of age, compared to eight shots with 15 doses of seven antigens in the 1980s -- may well be too many too soon. It hasn't been adequately tested in the aggregate as more and more shots like Hepatitis B, chickenpox and rotavirus have been added to the schedule, that's for sure.
Deirdre: Some say autism is just a difference, not a disability.
Mark: That's just nonsensical propaganda. It's great that some of the highest functioning autistics are taking strong positions of self-advocacy, however misguided a few of them might be. But the harsh reality is that most children with autism are severely disabled and have no idea what some of the most strident self-advocates are talking about. Most of them will never be able to live independently let alone concoct elaborate theories to normalize their condition. And many have co-morbid disorders like seizures and severe intestinal issues that make simple issue of managing their personal health incredibly difficult.
Dan: The families I've met are deeply affected and usually financially devastated.
Deirdre: Are there other diseases that have links to mercury?
Dan: A lot. The first half of the book looks at illnesses that for the most part have not been linked to mercury exposure. We start with syphilis, which became an epidemic around 1500, almost certainly after Columbus brought it back to Europe. This led to the wide-scale use of mercury salves and external treatments for the sores and disfiguring lesions it caused. Mercury is biologically active, so on the surface at least it seemed to work.
This led to the idea that internal administration of mercuric chloride -- a much more toxic form than elemental mercury or quicksilver -- would be even better, first by drinking and then by injecting it. We believe this actually led to a new and horrible and fatal form of syphilis called general paralysis of the insane.
We also think that several of Freud's key hysteria patients -- who became the foundation of his psychoanalytic theories -- were actually suffering from mercury poisoning. This sounds pretty radical, but when you look at the cases closely, signs of mercury poisoning are everywhere. Freud himself noted that most of his patients had fathers with longstanding syphilis and that a high percentage of his clients came from nursing careers. And one of his most famous cases, the Wolf-Man, later told an interviewer that his physical problems stemmed from being given a mercury compound called calomel. He laughed at Freud's claim to have cured him through talk therapy.
Deirdre: What do you think should happen now?
Dan: Our research suggests that it has always been a mistake to use mercury in medicine or as medicine, and it's an especially bad mistake with this kind of mercury injected into pregnant women and infants. We need to stop that, period. We can still provide vaccinations for serious diseases. It may cost a little more but it's worth it.
We do believe that mercury is the big clue to the roots and rise of autism. Autism is not ancient, despite what may have been a few scattered cases. It's not inevitable. And it's treatable. Kids can and do recover.
Mark: We need better research into environmental factors conducted by honest, independent scientists who are not afraid of what they might find. That research agenda must include including investment into a program of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated science, including both animal studies as well as studies of the total health outcomes in vaccinated vs. never-vaccinated kids.
The Age of Autism lays out disturbing evidence that mercury from many sources is a major factor in the rise of this tragic epidemic. Make sure your doctor sees a copy of this timely book.
quote: This array suggested a bigger, underlying dysfunction, and Ioannidis thought he knew what it was. “The studies were biased,” he says. “Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there.” Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them. We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. “At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” says Ioannidis. “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”
----------------------------------------------------
We can, of course, be sure that none of these distortions have played a role in relation to research on autism or vaccines or environmental risks to infants and children...
Warning...this post may contain sarcasm...
You know, that silvery stuff did look a lot like mercury...
"Perhaps worse, Ioannidis found that even when a research error is outed, it typically persists for years or even decades. He looked at three prominent health studies from the 1980s and 1990s that were each later soundly refuted, and discovered that researchers continued to cite the original results as correct more often than as flawed—in one case for at least 12 years after the results were discredited."
If there is such a lag-time in professional awareness, I wonder how long erroneous findings or erroneous representations of what a study finds persist in the public arena?
"But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that."
Assuming their careers don't depend on avoiding the subject, I wonder what meta-researchers would say about the reliability of thimerosal-autism epidemiology at this point?
Maybe I've missed this, considering I haven't and probably won't read through the 2,500+ comments on this blog entry alone, but I'd like to ask for some evidence. Let me specify:
Could someone please present me with scientific evidence (in the form of multiple scientific papers) that causally links vaccines and autism. For example:
Paper 1 shows genetic mutation X results in autism
Paper 2 shows that genetic mutation X can result from exposure to Y
Paper 3 shows that vaccine Z contains sufficient and necessary quantities of Y to cause genetic mutation X
That is a very simplified version of what such a group of papers looks like, but is essentially the connection I'm looking for.
I ask this for two reasons:
1) I don't have any problem accepting scientific evidence that actually shows a causal link between vaccination and the etiology of autism
2) There are enough correlation studies to both support and clearly refute a causal link between vaccination and the etiology of autism, that to use a correlation study to support such a link, is a weak and essentially useless argument.
I would appreciate everyone's help answering this question. Additionally, I do NOT want a link to a website: I would like links or citations of actual papers.
Thanks again.
I take it you can't answer my request?
http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/us-supreme-court-case-could-change-process-in-vaccine-lawsuits/
"The “vaccine court” was set up to release vaccine makers from any and all liability, as well as provide “legal” cover to suppress damning, and/or release fraudulent, data concerning their vaccines at the expense of public health for profit and their eugenics depopulation agenda.
If the US Supreme Court rules in favor of Wyeth (Pfizer), it will be a clear indication that the law of this land is no longer in the hands of we the people and should send out a resounding message that vaccinations are not meant for anything other than profit and genocide and thus should be avoided at all costs!"
http://www.vosizneias.com/65863/2010/10/11/washington-supreme-court-to-consider-vaccine-case
"At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits.* The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation."
*added for emphasis.
So this is now several sources that corroborate the points made by Schwartzz and Mr. Willoughby. Not one source from WhiteAndNerdy.
Under Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“NCVIA”),
"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."
Sheldon said, "I don't think that vaccination is a contentious issue in the world of these [Supreme Court] judges." (07:52 am, 10/13/2010)
I think that is true (on multiple levels). Supreme Court justices possess JDs, not MDs. They are attorneys and judges. Supreme Court justices are experts on the application of law. Supreme Court justices are not epidemiologists or toxicologists. They are not investigating the etiology of autism nor studying perinatal environmental exposures in relation to neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Sheldon is correct. This is not a part of their world.
The arguments are whether the law as written precludes civil lawsuit. Part of their consideration is whether the current system is meeting the intent. The issues surrounding vaccination itself are not likely to be the key factors."
Well said, Schwartzz.
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Samuel Alito.
Progressive justices:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan (recused).
-------------------------------
"Questions seemed to go liberal versus conservative. My crystal ball says 9-0." -Sheldon.
"I agree with Schwartzz, however; I'm certain the Justices will rule in favor of business as opposed to ruling in favor of constitutional rights." -Craig.
I agree. Clearly, ALL the conservative justices will rule in favor of industry. The ruling will be at least 5 to 3 (Elena Kagan, recused); and IMO probably 6 to 2, or 7 to 1. Justice Sotomayor's opinion will be very interesting.
And Justice Elena Kagan's opinion would have been fascinating. It is a shame Kagan is recused (she will not take part because of her work on the case while she served in the Justice Department).
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57238/
--------------------------------
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-152.pdf
Briefs
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/oct2010.shtml#wyeth
The judges understand Sabin Polio vaccine (Live) to Salk Polio Vaccine (Inactivated). Sabin vaccine causes polio. There were years in which in the US the only cases of polio were caused by the vaccine. Finding experts who believe the CDC should have moved back to Salk sooner isn't a problem. Avoiding those polio cases was simple --- don't use Sabin vaccine.
The same is true of the thimerosal autism cases. When there was a decision to move to thimerosal free vaccines in 1999, that was a move by the CDC. It could have been done earlier or it could have been done later or not done at all. The Georgia case argues that the vaccine maker was liable because they had thimerosal in vaccines and that caused harm and the harm was avoidable because it wasn't difficult to only use thimerosal-free vaccines.
Yet those who would be sued are the vaccine makers who were making a vaccine properly and having the FDA required information.
Questions seemed to go liberal versus conservative. My crystal ball says 9-0.
Maybe this will help make things clear:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/10/should-vaccins-be-exempt-from-product-liability-will-supreme-court-protect-business-or-you.html
" Should Vaccines Be Exempt from Product Liability?"
" Do you feel safe knowing that Merck and friends bear no financially liability for the vaccines..."
Not only do many AoA posters know this isn't true, but from their own link:
" Under that system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer..."
Right--can it be any more clear?
W&N
Right--can it be any more clear?
Thanks for agreeing with me.
You have figured out that one can sue vaccine manufacturers.
And thus you also have to know that when AoA writes"...Merck and friends bear no financially liability for the vaccines" that this is not true.
And the consequence of this misinformation is that AoA readers don't know about the court cases, or the decisions, or the long history of AoA arguments being ruled junk science.
But that is exactly the point, isn't?
W&N
So as of the rulings of both the Federal Court and the Federal court of appeals pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the US, the current law means they can't be sued in civil court and therefore can't be held liable.
Pretty straight forward. What part are you missing?
"They filed a lawsuit against Wyeth Inc., the DTP manufacturer responsible for Hannah's injection, but the suit was thrown out in federal court.
Last year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision. But in March, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
It will be argued Tuesday.
At the center of the debate is whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 -- created to help shield vaccine makers from costly lawsuits, while at the same time providing compensation to children who suffered severe side effects from vaccines -- precludes civil litigation against vaccine manufacturers.
Under the act, a manufacturer cannot be held liable for design defects "if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."
Wyeth argues that the passage clearly absolves them from civil liability."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10284/1093671-499.stm
Right now, I'm really not sure how it could be ruled; in my opinion, it could go either way.
Did want a chance to reconsider this posting?
W&N
--------------
I was under the belief that only the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine virus was used in the UK under the NHS. In fact, the only MMR vaccine currently available is Priorix. It has been on the market since 1998 http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_120078.pdf It uses the Schwartz vaccine strain and it is based on.....ta ...da... the Jeryl Lynn strain. As we know, the Jeryl Lynn strain does not cause aseptic meningitis. And as we know, aseptic meningitis from mumps vaccine does not cause permanent harm.
Studies have not associated the Schwartz strain used in Priorix with aseptic meningitis.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/165/6/704.full
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/10/chief-justice-roberts-sells-pfizer-shares-before-landmark-product-safety-case.html
Where AoA again tells us that you can't sue vaccine manufacturers.
And it is very easy to see posters at AoA that know this claim is untrue.
From MD, Blackwell v Wyeth: Geier, Siebert, Mumper, Deth, and Haley--all their testimony was ruled junk science.
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
From VA, Sykes v Glaxo-SmithKline: dismissed with prejudice
http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/sykes_v_bayer_docket.html
And in an epic public spanking, the Sykes attorney was court sanctioned for ethical failings in the case:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-06-23-Order%20Imposing%20Sanctions%20on%20Shoemaker.pdf
From NC, Doe v Ortho: Geier, Haley, and Lucier testimony ruled junk science.
http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
From MD, Aventis v Skevofilax: Key witness Bradstreet withdrew--the court points out that his testimony was unlikely to be admissible in court.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2007/15a06.pdf
In TX, Easter v Aventis, Bradstreet's testimony excluded as junk science:
http://neurodiversity.com/court/easter420_memorandum_opinion_and_order.pdf
Bonus case from CA, Redfood v Ascher arguing that thimerosal in a nasal spread caused autism. Where the court excluded the testimony of Geier, Bradstreet, Lucier, Haley, and Krigsman as....junk science.
http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/redfoot75_order.pdf
AoA's arguments are junk science.
W&N
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/10/chief-justice-roberts-sells-pfizer-shares-before-landmark-product-safety-case/comments/page/2/#comments
"Posted by: MySocratesNote | October 10, 2010 at 01:43 PM"
Our dear friend MySocratesNote knows very well that one can sue vaccine manufactures, that there have been suits against vaccine manufacturers, and that basically everything that AoA argues has been ruled junk science.
He just choose not to post the truth.
Can it get any clearer?
W&N
It would be intelligent to keep up with the conversation thread that YOU began and stick to the relevant topic. It would also help if your own confirmation bias as to what was actually said was removed from your conversation, especially since it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as anyone can plainly see.
Can it get any clearer?
This is actually what they claimed:
"Many Americans are unaware that vaccinations, a medical product with known side effects that can include death, are exempt from the standard jury trial system of every other product sold in the country."
That statement is quite accurate. Vaccines are exempt from the STANDARD jury trial system. In order to file a claim, you must first apply to the VICP. If you find the VICP rulings unacceptable, you can appeal to the court system or file a civil suit, but that is not the standard process. Additionally, both the federal court and the federal court of appeal has ruled that civil suits are precluded under the legislation. The question is up for review by the Supreme Court this week, however, as it standands, the courts have ruled quite definitively in favour of wyeth in the case. I believe the cases you linked, are appeals of VICP decisions, not civil lawsuits.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10284/1093671-499.stm
"At the center of the debate is whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 -- created to help shield vaccine makers from costly lawsuits, while at the same time providing compensation to children who suffered severe side effects from vaccines -- precludes civil litigation against vaccine manufacturers."
So, what exactly does that make your posts? Junk?
You don't seem to understand what the word exempt means: freed from or not subject to.
Yes one first has to go through VICP, but if one loses,
or if one wins and doesn't like the award
or if one isn't covered by the vaccine act
then one can sue a vaccine manufacturer.
That would be every single family in the US who can sue vaccine manufacturers.
This is not being exempt from standard jury trials.
If you were to read the cases posted before commenting on them, you would see that they are not appeals of VICP decisions, they are US civil suits. This is because in the US one can sue vaccine manufacturers.
If you were to read the next sentence from your link, you would see that they clarify. The law explicitly excludes one specific legal argument--design defects. But one still can, and people have, sued vaccine manufacturers claiming that vaccines caused autism.
No, I think the real issue here is really, really simple. AoA folks know about these lawsuits, they just don't like the facts and so imply they don't exist.
W&N
http://www.facebook.com/AlisynCamerota
And here's today's great interview she did where more vaccination truth came out, including waiver information. Yayyyyy.
"Whooping Cough Shot Mandatory? - Fox News Video"
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4367469/whooping-cough-shot-mandatory/
Watch this Fox doc contradict himself. And I didn't think he could live down the embarrassment of his ignorance the last time one of our Mother's educated him to ever show his face, again, but he did. And he blew it again. He does very well for our side, doesn't he? lol.
Remember the last time he inserted his foot before this time?
"Fox News Doctor Gets Schooled By Mother Of Child With Autism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8wseIXsPmw&feature=player_embedded
--------------------
1. More evidence that vaccinating pregnant women against the flu protects their newborns from getting the flu when it is particularly dangerous. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921345
2. Getting vaccinated against the flu is associated with a lower rate of heart attacks. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.091891v1 (full text)
I learned of these studies from Steve Novella's blog entry at Science Based Medicine http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7223 which I recommend.
The mighty Orac, in his guise as the mild mannered Dr. Gorski, is also a contributor to Science Based Medicine. When reading blog entries by Dr. Gorski, bowing before your computer monitor is not necessary.
http://www.facebook.com/AlisynCamerota
You know the details & depth of this matter in which these people who call our good doctors quacks but are the true quacks themselves, has been thoroughly discredited in ways that can't be denied.
Soon, these bad seeds will have to step aside as the best of conventional & alternative medicine integrates because our people demand it & we will then be on a real road to recovery.
The only legal avenue left for the 5000 or so claims is that the US Supreme Court will decide to allow lawsuits against vaccine makers to go ahead by ruling that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does not prevent such claims to be made in state lawsuits. So far most courts have granted summary judgment for the vaccine makers. That is, that as a matter of law, even if all your claims are true, you can't succeed. Therefore, your case doesn't even get to trial.
My guess is that this is a lawsuit that the US Supreme Court had to take because the Georgia Supreme Court came to a different conclusion from that of other courts and a disparity of this type should not be allowed to stand. Those hoping for a Supreme Court decision following the Georgia decision shouldn't hold out much hope that this will be followed.
The trial decision going to the Supreme Court is here. http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1993773474036497774&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . The appeals court decision is http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=6600077998090379661&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr and the Georgia case is here http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=4615499317161611003&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_vis=1
------------
I live in the province of Ontario where flu vaccine "is free and available to people six months of age and older who live, work or attend school in Ontario." "The seasonal flu shot is available at doctors' offices, community health centres and walk-in medical clinics. Some employers also provide vaccination clinics in the workplace."
In addition, the City of Toronto's public flu clinics start October 29th and take place in government buildings, supermarkets, shopping malls, community centres (centres is the correct spelling, eh?) and community colleges. For more information, maps and schedule details see http://www.toronto.ca/health/flu/index.htm
There are a lot of benefits from the Ontario practice. One has been fewer prescriptions for antibiotics, which in turn can help to slow down antibiotic resistance. See http://www.idsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=15220
In the US, Fluzone HD (high dose) is approved for those 65 and older and should result in a much more effective vaccine for them. Since Canada isn't offering it, vaccinating the young is probably the best way to protect the elderly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QznfG6oDDM
*** I do not actually advocate anyone kow-towing before Orac. After all, on the internet, no one will know if you actually kow-tow or not. A simple bow will suffice.
One paragraph from the chapter titled, “Pollution,” p. 126:
"George Still was credited with the first clinical description of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, a sometimes fatal condition that not only swells and stiffens joints but causes spiking fevers and rash (alternately called Still's disease). 30 Still also first described a condition we would now call attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, using the phrase 'defect of moral control' to describe children who were neither retarded nor mentally ill but could not govern their impulses or attentions. 31"
The discussion that follows this is of descriptions of regressions similar to autism, descriptions of Down’s syndrome (first described also), and other developmental childhood disorders.
(Maybe not unrelated, Leo Kanner’s first autism case, Donald T. also suffered bouts of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.)
I just keep asking myself how many current “genetic,” or "mysterious," adverse health conditions could be better treated, cured, and particularly, prevented by eliminating and reducing pollution such as mercury exposure? I personally think that this is one direction true “health care reform” needs to go ASAP.
Good point about pollution.
We should all be able to agree that reducing pollution is a good idea.
Remind us, what is the trend over the last couple of centuries for exposure to mercury?
Thanks,
W&N