Autism Vaccine Decision

In message V_kCj.21646$TT4.6880@attbi_s22, Skeptic wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 11:50 pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...88f13a3-526e-4...

Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases,


This is not true. Vaccines exist to supposedly protect our children
from diseases. The "deadly" remark is not warrented unless you have
an incompetent allopath for a doctor.



REPLY:
A kiddo just died from the flu in MA a few weeks ago. A vaccine certainly
may have saved a life there. Vaccines do protect against diseases that can
and do kill. They are also diseases that even if they don't kill can have
serious morbidity.

Remember, you're replying to someone who doesn't believe
that diseases are communicable despite millennia of case
histories.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

On Mar 13, 11:02*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:50*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...88f13a3-526e-4....

Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases,

This is not true. *Vaccines exist to supposedly protect our children
from diseases. *The "deadly" remark is not warrented unless you have
an incompetent allopath for a doctor.

According to Cee, his heroes the orthopaths could cure anything. *Of
course, we have no way of knowing this now and it seems unlikely.

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative
that was in most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

This is not an accurate fact. *The thimerosal laden vaccines were
available and used until at least 2003. *The thimerosal amount was
"reduced" in some vaccines but remains high in others. *The actual
amount of thimerosal children are exposed to, from the fetus to the 3
year old, has actually increased.

That, of course, is a complete lie, since the number of vaccines
containing thimerosal that are given to children is now much less than
it was a decade ago, and the amount of mercury remaining in the
current vaccines is so small that the entire vaccine series contains
less than a single injection did a decade ago.

(Flu vaccine can be an exception. *If this worries you, don't get your
kid a flu shot, or insist on the type that's thimerosal-free.)

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

This is an accurate statement. *It is also in the Rhogam shots during
pregnancy.

Which not every woman gets, of course.

Hannah Poling was also diagnosed with mitochondrial, a rare metabolic
disorder that shares symptoms with autism. The federal court concedes
vaccines may have caused that disorder and "autism-like" symptoms in Hannah.

I suspect that all autistics have "autism-like " symptoms. *What in
the hell does some weasel word like "autism-like" symptoms mean?

You could look it up, but you'd just dismiss it as inaccurate when you
found out it wasn't autism. *So why bother?

That's the great thing about Cee. *He already has all the answers, so
he never needs to learn anything or ask any questions.


Kevin Leitch blogged about the "autism-like symnptoms" from the
report:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=735

IOW, Hannah does not have enough autism symptoms to be diagnosed as
having autism.

And, for Chuckie the Schmuckie, try reading the article for
comprehension and to learn how to analyze medical information. Kev
does a great job in this area, unlike him.

Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...f-ed1aebfc427c


Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases, but a landmark
federal case may shed some doubt about vaccines in the minds of parents.
A court has decided to compensate a family who claims their daughter
developed autism from her vaccine.

"For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The case is that of 9-year-old Hannah Poling of Atlanta, Georgia. Before
the concession, Hannah's case was to be heard in the federal vaccine court.

The decision is fanning the flames of the controversial firestorm
dividing the medical and autism communities. Thousands of parents,
including Adams County mom Holly Bortfeld, claim their child's autism
was injected into them with the vaccine.

CBS 21 News interviewed Bortfeld last April about her son Max, who was
diagnosed with autism ten years ago.

"I believe he got autism from his vaccinations," says Bortfeld.

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that
was in most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

But for max, Hannah and scores of others who got the shots before then,
this case out of Atlanta is helping their arguments. But will it hurt
vaccines?

"I think it's a little bit of a leap of faith to go from this case to
vaccines definitely cause autism," says Dr. Paul Williams, Houcks Road
Family Practice.

Dr. Williams says since the documents on Hannah's case are sealed, he
says he doesn't know what the judge's based their decision on. Was it
scientific fact or was it just political expediency?

As for vaccines today Dr. Williams says, "At this point I feel
comfortable and confident that the current vaccine supply is safe and I
wouldn't hesitate in vaccinating my family or my patients."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

Hannah's family is asking for mercury to be removed from all vaccines,
and they just might have the political weight behind them now to get
their demands met.

Hannah Poling was also diagnosed with mitochondrial, a rare metabolic
disorder that shares symptoms with autism. The federal court concedes
vaccines may have caused that disorder and "autism-like" symptoms in
Hannah.

Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if the
Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would not
make it so.

--Rich

Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...f-ed1aebfc427c


Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases, but a landmark
federal case may shed some doubt about vaccines in the minds of parents.
A court has decided to compensate a family who claims their daughter
developed autism from her vaccine.

"For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The case is that of 9-year-old Hannah Poling of Atlanta, Georgia. Before
the concession, Hannah's case was to be heard in the federal vaccine court.

The decision is fanning the flames of the controversial firestorm
dividing the medical and autism communities. Thousands of parents,
including Adams County mom Holly Bortfeld, claim their child's autism
was injected into them with the vaccine.

CBS 21 News interviewed Bortfeld last April about her son Max, who was
diagnosed with autism ten years ago.

"I believe he got autism from his vaccinations," says Bortfeld.

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that
was in most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

But for max, Hannah and scores of others who got the shots before then,
this case out of Atlanta is helping their arguments. But will it hurt
vaccines?

"I think it's a little bit of a leap of faith to go from this case to
vaccines definitely cause autism," says Dr. Paul Williams, Houcks Road
Family Practice.

Dr. Williams says since the documents on Hannah's case are sealed, he
says he doesn't know what the judge's based their decision on. Was it
scientific fact or was it just political expediency?

As for vaccines today Dr. Williams says, "At this point I feel
comfortable and confident that the current vaccine supply is safe and I
wouldn't hesitate in vaccinating my family or my patients."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

Hannah's family is asking for mercury to be removed from all vaccines,
and they just might have the political weight behind them now to get
their demands met.

Hannah Poling was also diagnosed with mitochondrial, a rare metabolic
disorder that shares symptoms with autism. The federal court concedes
vaccines may have caused that disorder and "autism-like" symptoms in
Hannah.

Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if the
Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would not
make it so.

--Rich

On Mar 14, 12:42*pm, Richard Shewmaker wrote:


Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if the
* Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would not
make it so.

--Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would hope not. Yet the gov thinks they can decide what is good for
your health, force you to drop your pants, and take as many shots of
vaccines as they deem necessary, thus proving that the sun sets in the
East.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

On Mar 14, 12:33*pm, Richard Shewmaker wrote:
Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...88f13a3-526e-4....

Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases, but a landmark
federal case may shed some doubt about vaccines in the minds of parents.
A court has decided to compensate a family who claims their daughter
developed autism from her vaccine.

"For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The case is that of 9-year-old Hannah Poling of Atlanta, Georgia. Before
the concession, Hannah's case was to be heard in the federal vaccine court.

In message , The One True Zhen Jue wrote:

Rich, welcome back to MHA! *I'd love to say that it has changed for
the better, but you know better!

MHA is an eternal manifestation of Eternal September.
Both in that some of the participants are stuck in
centuries past and never leave them, and in that some
topics never change in form, only in the even-du-jour
which is plugged into the contemporary reincarnation of
threads long dead.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

On Mar 14, 2:03*pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:42*pm, Richard Shewmaker wrote:



Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if the
* Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would not
make it so.

--Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would hope not. *

Tell that to those who incessantly post about Barrett and the courts.

Yet the gov thinks they can decide what is good for
your health,

Lousy analogy, Chuckie. When the government makes recommendations,
they are basing it on experts. When the courts make decisions, they
are basing it on sympathy. Fortunately, under Daubert and Frye, that
will change.

force you to drop your pants,

So you can speak louder.

and take as many shots of
vaccines as they deem necessary, thus proving that the sun sets in the
East.

Only if you put logic on its head.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:V_kCj.21646$TT4.6880@attbi_s22...

wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 11:50 pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...88f13a3-526e-4...

Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases,


This is not true. Vaccines exist to supposedly protect our children
from diseases. The "deadly" remark is not warrented unless you have
an incompetent allopath for a doctor.



REPLY:
A kiddo just died from the flu in MA a few weeks ago. A vaccine certainly
may have saved a life there. Vaccines do protect against diseases that
can and do kill. They are also diseases that even if they don't kill can
have serious morbidity.

http://www.medicalconsumers.org/page...heElderly.html

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20804

http://www.doctorbob.com/vd--flu-shot-season.html

==
A yearly flu shot for healthy babies and children is a relatively new policy
in the U.S. As noted, last year's reports of flu-related deaths among
healthy children drove many panicked people to line up for flu shots. But
the CDC web site (as of October 22, 2004) acknowledges that there is no way
of knowing whether more children than usual died of the flu last winter.
"Because the number of influenza deaths in children has not been tracked
before, it's not possible to compare the number of deaths in children this
year with previous years."

As far as the CDC knows, 152 children died of influenza in the 2003-04
season. For this article, the CDC officials were asked how many of these
children had been severely ill before they got influenza. Answer: "The CDC
will report these statistics at the end of this year." (The agency would not
permit direct access to its scientists for this article, so the answers to
all questions came via a press officer.) Since CDC had used these deaths to
promote flu shots and has since admitted the vaccine was largely
ineffective, it is important to know more about the children who died.

One imperfect study supports policy on babies

The basis of the CDC recommendation for babies between 6 and 23 months rests
on one rather imperfect study conducted in Colorado during last year's flu
season. It was a retrospective study of the nearly 30,000 children enrolled
in a Kaiser Permanente health plan. The 6-23 month-olds represented only
about one-sixth of all the children in the health plan. The study was funded
by the CDC and led by Debra P. Ritzwoller, PhD, research scientist in the
Research Unit at Kaiser Permanente, Colorado.

In a telephone interview, Dr. Ritzwoller was asked to explain the results,
as they were not described clearly on the CDC Web site. Compared to
unvaccinated children, the vaccinated children had 49% fewer cases of
influenza, according to Dr. Ritzwoller. This finding, she noted, applied
only to the children who had influenza A or B. Whereas, there was a smaller
benefit to those with the more common influenza-like illness: 25% fewer
cases among the vaccinated kids. But the key question is: 49% and 25% of
what? Dr. Ritzwoller was not able to provide the answer. Here's why the
question is important: If few children in this study got the flu, then these
reductions are less than meets the eye. For example, if 10,000 kids belong
to a health plan, and only four of the unvaccinated kids and three of the
vaccinated kids got an influenza-like illness, that's 25% fewer cases.

The children had their illness type determined in laboratory tests that were
administered in the emergency room. Unlike the well-designed clinical trials
that formed the basis of the Cochrane Reviews, the Colorado Kaiser
Permanente study had not randomly assigned the children to receive a flu
vaccine or a placebo vaccine. This study appeared online last summer in the
MMWR (Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report), but is yet to be published in a
peer-reviewed journal. When asked whether the flu vaccine caused any adverse
reactions, Dr. Ritzwoller said there were none, but acknowledged some gaps
in her study. "Hospital admissions were not tracked, and the parents were
not interviewed," she explained, attributing this to inadequate CDC funding.

The CDC's rationale for its relatively new policy regarding yearly flu shots
for babies 6-23 months is also based on their purportedly worse incidence of
influenza complications. But consumer advocate Barbara Loe Fisher has her
doubts. Giving the flu vaccine to babies under age two who are likely to
receive other, standard childhood immunizations at the same doctor visit is
a "national experiment," said Fisher.

She faults the CDC for creating hysteria about the dangers of the flu-last
year and this year-without warning parents and doctors about the unknowns
surrounding the safety of the flu vaccine in combination with other
childhood vaccines. The one exception she identified was Prevnar, the
pneumonia vaccine which has been studied in combination with the flu
vaccine.

Fisher is concerned about public health officials "cavalierly adding yet
another vaccine to the childhood regimen without proof of safety or
efficacy." A new Japanese study, published in Pediatrics International,
supports her concerns. Japanese babies, aged 6 to 24 months, had been
vaccinated against influenza A and then age-matched to unvaccinated babies.

All the babies were followed for three flu seasons. The study found that the
vaccine was ineffective in preventing influenza A. What's more, the research
team led by Tao Maeda concluded that influenza vaccination of healthy
infants and young children is not justified unless the benefits clearly
outweigh the risks. More studies are needed, say the Japanese researchers,
before vaccinating children under the age of two becomes public policy.

"Mark Probert" wrote :

Chuckie the Schmuckie

Typical personal attacking and name calling form disbarred, hypocrite and
proven liar.