Posted on 11/18/2002 3:36:02 AM PST by kingedgars
A measure slipped in the homeland security bill would mean those injured by childhood vaccines could collect only $250,000.
Are you 100% certain of this? My nephew has Autism and I would sure like to know how anyone is 100% sure that Vaccines do not cause it....Thanks
Sorry to bother you again but did ou find out anything about if this bill makes Vaccines mandatory? I looked at the bill but 487 pages is a lot to look through when you aren't sure what to look for.
Thanks
Actually, the solution is either going to involve some version of tort reform--or every trial attorney in this country dangling from lampposts in the next really big economic downturn. Take your pick.
Tort reform may have unintended consequences such as motivating the providers of goods and/or services to calculate odds at being convicted for providing known inferior and dangerous goods and/or serivces and paying the damaged more than is done today.
Actually, no. If you can show willful disregard of known consequences, then the sky is (legitimately) the limit.
Just downloaded it last night here at home and hit the hay. Work mid-noon and after I got home crashed out. Hopefully I will find something in it today (also looking for a few other tidbits).
The evidence for "vaccines causing autism" is (a) child is vaccinated; (b) child is diagnosed as autistic; (c) therefore, vaccination causes autism. It's about as realistic as (a) child breathes; (b) child is diagnosed with autism; (c) breathing causes autism.
I caught him on tv. It sounded like he was presenting a paper. I came across it in the middle and didn't always understand what he was talking about. But when he spoke about his research methods, from what I know, they sounded pretty good.
For example, there were complaints about an original study, that the data was unreliable. So they went back through and threw out all cases (of autism showing up after an MMR) which were based solely upon parental input and also those in which the medical records reflected the parent's input written down by the Dr. The cases that they used were parents backed up by educators (I'm assuming day care? This was in England, I think) or parents backed up by videotape evidence. Some did use photos as evidence, which I don't like nearly as well. I have a few pictures of my own children with vacant expressions.
I do know that this Dr was fired by a hospital (sounded like a big, important hospital) sometime after his research was published. Is it because he is a bad Dr, or was the hospital not wanting this information publicized (for what purpose I wouldn't know)? I'm simply not sure. I don't know enough.
I'm no genius, but neither am I a moron. The guy sounded like he might know something. And of course, he can "say" all sorts of thing which may not really be backed up by his own work. Do you know anything more?
Oooops, nevermind!
Your post implied that Wakefield had repudiated his earlier ideas. This is not true; Wakefield still stands by his earlier ideas about vaccinations being related to autism. He has found definite correlation but not causation -- yet. And at least he is honest enough to admit where he actually is in the process, instead of saying that he has all the answers when he really doesn't -- which is what most people on BOTH sides of this discussion do.
It's easy to have an opinion like this when you make sure that you don't look into any evidence contrary to said opinion.
There is enough evidence out there to warrant more investigation of a link, whether you want to look at the evidence or not.
The initial survey was on 12--count them, TWELVE--children. That's way too small a sample pool. The follow-up studies have not supported the initial claim made by Wakefield.
There is enough evidence out there to warrant more investigation of a link, whether you want to look at the evidence or not.
Wow. The initial reports turned out to be BS, but there's reason to investigate. Kinda like how the Democrats conceded that there was no evidence of Bush participating in an "October Surprise" during the 1980 election, but then arguing that the charges were SO SERIOUS that we had to spend unbelievable amounts of money investigating them.
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.