Posted on 01/07/2002 1:15:35 PM PST by expose
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
TRULY.....TRULY....I never want to offend or hurt anyone.............and maybe my last post hurt, I don't know.
But I don't see anyone out there defending the parent's rights to protect their children from unneccesary intrusive medical experimentation............and it really pushes my buttons!!!
You have strong beliefs.....so do I.
I made this personal...........but I'm responding to your replies to others.
I probably should quit posting today.....this has upset me so!
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that during those first 15 months, that child was not kept in a sterile lab, barred from all contact with humans or any other life forms, and only fed by IV. Which means almost anything else on earth is as likely to have "caused" the autism, assuming it's caused by anything at all other than bad luck or bad genes or who knows what.
However, one thing that has been scientifically proven over and over again is the emotional need of humans to assign "blame" to someone or something whenever something bad happens to them, even the utterly unexplainable. It's horrible that this couple's child suffers from autism, but there's simply no real evidence - none, zero, zip - that vaccines of any sort have any bearing whatsoever on autism. We don't even know whether autism is "contractable" or if it's just something that happens.
By the way, all autistic kids "start regressing" sometime after 15 months of age. That's when autism becomes diagnosable.
Are you a physician too?
What is your opinion on Hep B vaccine given to infants?
There have been court cases in which mothers have lost custody of their children for refusing to take or administer AZT. I don't have any immediate citations but I have seen them posted previously on FR by the Duesberg lovers. Ya know - AIDS is caused by drug abuse and sodomy, HIV is harmless, Magic Johnson treats his HIV with herbal tea enemas...blah, blah.
I have to agree with you. Notice in these posts that all the medically educated people are encouraging immunizations. (doctors, nurses, etc) Maybe because they know something that lay people don't?
The problem is, people won't immunize their kids, then when they come down with hep, TB, whatever, SUE THE DOCTOR!
Also, regarding "newborns contracting hepatitis", although newborns run an increased risk of contracting anything due to immature immune systems, these immunizations are to protect, not just through "newbornhood" but through childhood and beyond, with the proper boosters. By the way, I was immunized (hospital worker)as was my husband (doctor) and we are no worse for the wear. Also my youngest son was and had no adverse reactions - and we, knowing the risks and benefits had no qualms about doing so. My oldest wasn't because they immunize for Hep B "way" back then. But due to his chosen profession (medicine) I'm sure he will be when the time comes.
The fact is, there are risks in EVERYTHING. Go get in your car today and you are risking death in an accident. The question here is: Do the risks outweigh the benefits? I say no. The benefits are clear. The risk, minimal. Although the choice is up to the individual, I believe those who don't choose to immunize their children are doing them a disservice.
Families Seek Compensation for Alleged Vaccine Harm
By Richard Woodman
LONDON (Reuters Health) - More than 1,000 British families have joined a legal battle for millions of pounds compensation for harm they claim was caused to their children by measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines, their solicitors said on Monday.
The case--which is scheduled to come to trial in February 2003--follows controversial research findings suggesting that use of the vaccines could be linked to inflammatory bowel disease and autism.
Two firms of solicitors, Alexander Harris and Freethcartwright, have been appointed as the joint leading firms in the generic litigation against Aventis Pasteur MSD, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A spokeswoman at Alexander Harris said that the firm represented about 1,000 families while the total number involved was probably around 1,500. She said likely levels of compensation varied but could be worth several million pounds for children with serious brain damage.
The firm's Web site says that the case is being brought under the Consumer Protection Act--part of the European Union (news - web sites)'s Product Liability Directive that imposes liability on manufacturers of products for any injury caused by an unsafe product. The families had been granted public funds to pay for the legal action.
The firm said that the UK Department of Health stopped using SmithKline Beecham's Pluserix and Aventis Pasteur MSD's Immaravax in 1992, two years after a similar vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine virus was withdrawn in Canada after reports of meningitis.
``After we had been contacted by several hundred families a clear pattern began to emerge,'' the solicitors said. ``Children who were developing well, both physically and intellectually, before the vaccine, regressed after vaccination, often accompanied by other symptoms and a gradual decline into autism.''
They added: ``It is important to stress that we appear to be dealing with cases where the children, who were fit and well before being vaccinated and were developing normally in every way, are now chronically ill and as a result many are seriously mentally or physically disabled.''
A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline said that all the manufacturers were still trying to clarify exactly what was being alleged by the families. He added that numerous studies had failed to show a link between MMR vaccination and autism, and that the legal action would be defended.
The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have also dismissed reports by researchers at London's Royal Free Hospital suggesting that the triple vaccine may trigger autism.
The bottom line is that she had three measles vaccinations and she still got measles. How many children have had this problem and been misdiagnosed or ignored? How can the medical establishment deal with an issue if they won't even admit that it exists?
I'm not a paraniod person and I do believe that doctors and scientists have the public's best interest at heart, but (due to personal experience) I now have serious reservations and trust issues with vaccines.
My youngest son was forcibly given three injections of hep-b in the hospital the day after he was born.. WITHOUT CONSENT! We never saw the happy healthy baby my wife gave birth to again. my son may never develop hep-b, but he will spend the rest of his life in isolation and shame unable to communicate or control his body.
my opinion is this mandated vaccination smacks of socialism and drug company profits and NOT the health of children.
PLEASE give me more information on this!
Honestly, I do believe that the vaccination helped her to only have a mild case, and I would be content with that. It's the abject denial on the part of medical personal that bothers me.
Hmmm. Interesting. Couldn't find ANYTHING about the make up of this group other than who the top two people are -- and ain't neither one of them doctors, scientist, researchers, nurses, bandaide keepers or anything else like that as far as I can tell. It does not look as though they have done any independent research, studies, investigations, etc, but rather depend on secondhand, thirdhand and fourthhand reports.
Look, I'm not trying to say that this group has no credibility. I'm simply saying that if you and all the "vacines ruined my kid" folks are going to use such sites for your "proof," you really need to question them with the same skepticismyou apply to CDC et. al. My experience has been that people go shopping until they find info that supports their preconceived notions and devine upon that site unquestionable authority. I think if you DID apply such skepticism you would find serious flaws.
The reality couldn't be farther from the truth.
The fact is that the US government sets pricing policy for all vaccines. I'm not talking the price the doctor PAYS for the vaccine. The drug companies have free reign to charge anything THEY want.
I'm talking about the price the doctor can CHARGE for the vaccine. The reality is that doctor's fees are currently price fixed by the Department of Health and Human Services. In particular, HHS sets those rates by making a designation for the fee in the MediCare guidelines for the year. All private insurers then set their reimbursement to the doctor at the same level.
So, when these whackos start claiming that the doctors are making a ton of money, just remember one thing.
THERE IS NO ECONOMIC INCENTIVE FOR ANY PEDIATRICIAN TO GIVE ANY VACCINES.
Why?
Because we make money treating SICK children, vaccines PREVENT illness. The more we immunize your child, the less illness and the less need for our jobs.
What is the point of your argument? I don't understand your logic or what you are trying to argue. Please be more specific, so I can respond in a cogent fashion. Thanks.
My biggest concern is that the physicians who spend 10+ years in training are being negated by individuals who have not one minute of formal training in the issues. If a parent chooses to go "against medical advice", it is their perogative.
However, at a certain point, who defends the child's life when the parent is acting foolish?
For this reason, physicians have the legal duty to protect the child's life ABOVE any legal or financial duty to the parent. The judicious use of this responsibility is paramount. I am sharply critical of colleagues who consistently over step their legal responsibility and instead become prosecutorial towards parents.
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.