Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court

Jeff wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.


Mark,

What does that mean?

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?

Donna

It has not been determined that the kids were damaged by their vaccines.
In fact, there is very little evidence that vaccines cause autism and
much that vaccines don't cause autism.

As sorry as I feel for these kids and their families, I don't see why
vaccine companies should pay when the vaccine don't cause autism.

The vaccine companies have already paid into a fund to cover the awards
for real vaccine damage. The fund is over-financed and keeps growing and
growing...

I would not mind it if the fund financed programs to help families and
kids without any reference to vaccines, etc.

Mark Probert wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply
Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.


Mark,

What does that mean?

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?

Donna

It has not been determined that the kids were damaged by their
vaccines. In fact, there is very little evidence that vaccines cause
autism and much that vaccines don't cause autism.

As sorry as I feel for these kids and their families, I don't see why
vaccine companies should pay when the vaccine don't cause autism.

The vaccine companies have already paid into a fund to cover the awards
for real vaccine damage. The fund is over-financed and keeps growing and
growing...

I would not mind it if the fund financed programs to help families and
kids without any reference to vaccines, etc.

That's what happens with lawsuits. Facts are not an issue.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:TQkbi.604$or4.76@trnddc06...


It has not been determined that the kids were damaged by their vaccines.
In fact, there is very little evidence that vaccines cause autism and much
that vaccines don't cause autism.

As sorry as I feel for these kids and their families, I don't see why
vaccine companies should pay when the vaccine don't cause autism.


http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached
all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and
Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway,
feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its
side."----Goethe

Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.



Mark,

What does that mean?

It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?

Donna

I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents
paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this
courtcase.

JOHN wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:TQkbi.604$or4.76@trnddc06...

It has not been determined that the kids were damaged by their vaccines.
In fact, there is very little evidence that vaccines cause autism and much
that vaccines don't cause autism.

As sorry as I feel for these kids and their families, I don't see why
vaccine companies should pay when the vaccine don't cause autism.


http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached
all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and
Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway,
feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its
side."----Goethe

These scientists look at the real data and concluded that there was very
little data to back up the conclusion that vaccines cause autism:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx

The people at the US Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences know far more about vaccines and autism than John does. Or I do.

Jeff

It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.


Im glad its going to court. Now the REAL science will prevail! Not
just pharma "paid" science!

Donna


On Jun 12, 6:58 am, JohnDoe wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.

Mark,

What does that mean?

It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?

Donna

I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents
paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this
courtcase.

Kevysmom wrote:
It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.


Im glad its going to court. Now the REAL science will prevail! Not
just pharma "paid" science!

If you really think that the court case has everything to do with
science, you're incorrect. The court case has everything to do with
winning the case and little to do with science or finding the truth.

Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data.

Jeff

Donna


On Jun 12, 6:58 am, JohnDoe wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.
Mark,
What does that mean?
It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?
Donna
I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents
paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this
courtcase.

I would be delighted if the cases were all
rejected. That is justice.


Spoken like a true Pharma Shill! Phuck the kids as long as Pharma
prevails! You are sad Mark.

Donna


On Jun 11, 10:22 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.

Mark,

What does that mean?

It means that the evidence presented by both sides will have to meet the
standard as set forth in the Daubert case. Look it up.

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?

Depends on what you call justice. If you mean having claims paid where
there is no evidence, I would be delighted if the cases were all
rejected. That is justice.

I would be ecstatic if the parents and the kids were able to get
whatever they need, whenever they need it. You may not call it
"justice", but I would call it the morally right thing to be done.





Donna

On Jun 10, 5:47 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
JOHN wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/06/09/AR200...
344.html?nav=rss_nation
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Families, After Having Claims Rejected by Experts, Face Lower Burden of
Proof
Isn't that sad!

BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence. This is NOT a lower burden of proof.

The DOJ attorneys are doing an excellent job of preparing for the trials.

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 10, 2007; Page A06
For more than a decade, families across the country have been warring with
the medical establishment over their claims that routine childhood vaccines
are responsible for the nation's apparent epidemic of autism. In an
extraordinary proceeding that begins tomorrow, the battle will move from the
ivory tower to the courts.
Nearly 5,000 families will seek to convince a special "vaccine court" in
Washington that the vaccines can cause healthy and outgoing children to
withdraw into uncommunicative, autistic shells -- even though a large body
of evidence and expert opinion has found no link. The court has never heard
a case of such magnitude.
The shift from laboratory to courtroom means the outcome will hinge not on
scientific standards of evidence but on a legal standard of plausibility --
what one lawyer for the families called "50 percent and a feather." That may
make it easier for the plaintiffs to sway the panel of three "special
masters," which is why the decision could not only change the lives of
thousands of American families but also have a profound effect on the
decisions of parents around the world about whether to vaccinate their
children.
A victory by the plaintiffs, public health officials say, could increase the
number of children who are not given vaccines and fall sick or die from the
diseases they prevent.
Economics and politics intersect in the case with questions of health and
the deepening mystery of soaring autism rates. Advocates of the vaccine
theory have argued that the increase in cases was triggered by a
mercury-based preservative in vaccines that, they say, is toxic to
children's brains.
Under pressure from the advocates and to keep the issue from disrupting
vaccination programs, U.S. officials began phasing out the additive,
thimerosal, in children's vaccines around 1999 while maintaining that there
was no hard evidence that it was dangerous. But thimerosal is still used in
vaccines across much of the developing world. If the vaccine court decides
that the preservative caused autism, parents of children in poor countries
are likely to protest its inclusion, but removing it would make vaccines
much more expensive and potentially put them out of reach for many.
Gary Golkiewicz, chief special master in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
where the case is to be heard, said he is aware of the larger ramifications.
But the court's job, he said, is only to focus on whether plaintiffs show a
plausible link between vaccines and autism.
About 20 experts are expected to testify in the case, which will involve a
staggering amount of complicated epidemiology and biochemistry. Golkiewicz
said a ruling could be a year off.
Experts for the government will argue that a range of epidemiological
studies found no link between vaccines and autism, as the prestigious
Institute of Medicine concluded in a 2004 report. The institute, part of the
National Academies that was chartered by Congress to advise the government
and the public on matters of science, dismissed the vaccine-autism theory,
which is mostly based on biochemistry studies on the toxic effects of
mercury.
Large international studies -- and preliminary evidence from the United
States -- suggest that after thimerosal was removed from children's
vaccines, autism rates continued to soar.
If thimerosal was the cause, removing it should have sharply lowered autism
rates, scientists say. Although definitive national evidence is not in --
children vaccinated after 1999 are just beginning to enter school, which is
the point at which many receive a diagnosis -- data from California suggest
that autism rates are continuing to climb steeply.
The cases are rising, experts say, primarily because of better diagnosis and
services: Parents and teachers are more attuned to the signs of autism, and
doctors are better equipped to spot it than they were two decades ago. Also,
the boundaries of the diagnosis have expanded to include a range of problems
under an umbrella known as autism spectrum disorders.
The plaintiffs acknowledge that their case is far from airtight
scientifically. But Kevin Conway, a Boston attorney representing the family
of 12-year-old Michelle Cedillo of Yuma, Ariz., whose claim was designated
the opening test case for more than 4,800 plaintiffs, said that even if the
science is equivocal, he has a good legal argument, which is all he needs.
"There is a difference between scientific proof and legal proof," Conway
said. "One is 95 percent certainty, and the other is . . . 50 percent and a
feather."
Besides, Conway added, those who support the vaccine-autism theory did not
put all their eggs in the thimerosal basket. They are also arguing that
something else in vaccines might be making children sick.
Like many other advocates of the link, Conway said he believes that vaccines
in general are a good thing and have saved many lives. In an age of
bioterrorism, moreover, vaccines are not just a health priority but a
national security priority. But Congress's efforts to shield vaccine makers
from lawsuits over the rare but inevitable side effects of vaccines have
given the companies no incentive to make vaccines as safe as possible,
Conway said.
Congress set up the vaccine court to provide compensation for individuals
harmed by those side effects, because lawsuits were threatening to put
vaccine makers out of business.
The law requires people claiming they were harmed by a vaccine to bring the
case in the special court first, but if they lose, they can still file suit
in civil courts.
Scientific advocates for the vaccine-autism theory, such as the
father-and-son team of Mark and David Geier of Silver Spring, say fears
about damaging public health programs have prompted scientists and the
government to hide evidence of a problem. Many of the families believe that
the medical establishment and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention have conspired in a massive coverup.
Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute and a biology
professor at George Washington University, who has a 14-year-old autistic
daughter, said the controversy has distracted from the real problem: finding
services for rising numbers of autistic children and ramping up research to
find a cure.
"We are absolutely confident Rachel's vaccines have nothing to do with her
autism," he said. "If we could roll back the clock, we would give her all
the vaccines again."
But the family of severely autistic Michelle Cedillo, who arrived in
Washington on Friday for the trial, disagrees.
Michelle was a healthy 15-month-old when she was given the
measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, said her mother, Theresa. The dozen or so
words she had been able to speak -- including Mommy, Daddy, baby, kitty and
juice -- vanished. She developed a high fever one week after the shot and
went rapidly downhill. Today, she does not speak and is totally dependent on
caregivers. She suffers from seizures, arthritis and inflammatory bowel
disease and is nearly blind.
Cedillo said she is "not anti-vaccine" and not very interested in playing
the blame game or weighing in on matters of public policy.
"I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor," she said in an interview. "We
want to focus on Michelle and find out what happened and get the help for
her that she needs."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data.

What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the
media and pharma paid data use.

Donna


On Jun 12, 8:02 am, Jeff wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.

Im glad its going to court. Now the REAL science will prevail! Not
just pharma "paid" science!

If you really think that the court case has everything to do with
science, you're incorrect. The court case has everything to do with
winning the case and little to do with science or finding the truth.

Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data.

Jeff



Donna

On Jun 12, 6:58 am, JohnDoe wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert
standards to evaluate the evidence.
Mark,
What does that mean?
It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their
case. Which is going to be hard.

Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice?
Donna
I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents
paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this
courtcase.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kevysmom wrote:
I would be delighted if the cases were all
rejected. That is justice.


Spoken like a true Pharma Shill! Phuck the kids as long as Pharma
prevails! You are sad Mark.

Donna

The problem is that vaccines *don't* cause autism. As sad as I am for
the kids and their families, the vaccine makers had nothing to do with
causing autism.

Jeff

PS, the word is spelled "****."