Hey, I can talk to dead babies,
accept the aborted ones. So back off!
Posted on 06/16/2007 8:36:33 PM PDT by Coleus
“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.””
Uh-oh. That’s not even reasonable doubt. That’s the standard used in small claim court — preponderance of evidence.
Hang onto your medical pocketbook. The ambulance chasers are in ascendance.
These poor people looking for an answer to why their children got sick. I, personally, believe autism is caused by the use of commercial baby formula instead of breast milk. And there is also that stuff they use to make disposable diapers.
But then it goes on to say,
"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 also argue that something else in vaccines may be making children sick." So are we supposed to believe, then, that even the parties to this lawsuit do not buy into its premise? That Conway sounds like a shyster who preys on people going through a family tragedy.
Friend of ours has a child who was destroyed by a vaccination. Her hair contained extraordinary levels of mercury post-vaccination. She was a fine beautiful child before the vaccination. She is autistic now. This should be a slam dunk. But it hasn’t been.
Lots of kids who are breast fed are autistic.
It also runs in families.
Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used for most issues in a civil trial - it’s not limited to small claims court and the like. Some issues in civil trials require “clear and convincing” evidence - which is somewhere between “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal standard) and “preponderance of the evidence.”
As for the link between mercury in vaccines and autism, it is not there.
If it runs in families, then how do the vaccines manage to cause it? I still think I’m on to something with the commercial formula. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the chidlren with autism were fed commercial formula (and used disposable diapers). Could be they need to look at the diet of the mothers who breast fed their children who became autistic. Another interesting theory I heard about this is that these rising numbers of austic children are being born to people whose parents used a lot of drugs.
I don’t know that they do.
I know of families where one of the kids was autistic so they didn’t give vaccines to the next kid. The next kid was still autistic.
Maybe in some kids autism is triggered by vaccines. I don’t think anyone really knows at this point.
I do think most people think there is a genetic component, but maybe something environmental triggers it.
Has anyone done a study to see if there is a link between former recreational drug use by a parent and autism in a child? As long as folks are throwing out theories without scientific proof, mine is as good as anyone’s.
Perhaps I should try to get a federal grant to do lifestyle history studies of parents of children with autism.
Hey, I can talk to dead babies,
accept the aborted ones. So back off!
Statistical studies have shown that mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists and engineers are over-represented among the parents of autistic children. Perhaps nerds should not marry other nerds.
Could be. Or perhaps the reason for the “soaring autism rate” is that the word “autistic” sounds so much more civilized than the phrase “a bit dim.”
Sounds to me like none of these keyboard experts have children that have been affected after being given the DPT shots. Jenny was very smart until she had these shots at about 3-3 1/2yo. After that she went downhill rapidly, and has remained at the 3-5yo level at age 30.
BTW we were not drug users, or rocket surgeons.
Most of these folks are talkin out their ass.
Feel free to share my thoughts with them.
Don
Let’s see.... If autism typically sets in during a child’s early years, then it’s logical that its onset is going to be right around the time of one of the frequent sets of vaccinations recommended during those years.
Autism hasn’t anything to do with a person being “a bit dim.”
I agree. I also think they should break up the MMR into separate vaccines. There's enough anecdotal evidence suggesting that this triple vaccine could be a trigger.
Glad to see someone else has figured that out as well.
Methinks the good attorney is referring to the "nearest deep pocket in the neighborhood of a sympathetic client" and the "you can't prove a negative" standards of proof. Both tried-and-true mainstays of the lotto wing of the legal industry.
Well lets take the premise and run with it. If vaccines do in fact cause Autism then what ?
It seems to me that things like the eradication of smallpox, polio, and all those other things outweighs the harm in the other direction should it even exist.
Or would our kids be better off dead from disease so they don’t get autism ?
These folks are crackers.
I think caution is advised with vaccines. You need to see what the risk factors are and if your child has any of those risks.
Also, I think if I had autism in my family I would consider not getting all of the vaccines.
Splitting up vaccines is a good idea. After a child gets one vaccine, they can get a titre test to see if they have already built up immunity.
It’s called caution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.