We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified
Comments
-
There are known side effects and risks to all medicines. For example, the contraceptive pill can cause strokes and thrombosis. People have died from allergic reactions to antibiotics. The reason the vaccine compensation scheme exists is because it's acknowledged that there is always a very remote possibility a child will have an adverse reaction, the same possibility that there is for anyone taking any pharmaceutical product.
Do you not think it pertinent that a specific vaccine dmage payment unit exists? is there such a unit for the medicines you cite as of equal "threat"?
Have you seen the number of claims brought here and in the US? the phrase "remote possibility" does not sit well with those figures, nor the bottom line $$$ payout.Do you suggest that children shouldn't be vaccinated nor that we should take paracetemol until 'all avenues have been exhausted'?
Where payouts are made, the case does not have to be medically proven. In fact, if, as you allege, it's known that the vaccine caused the damage, then there would be no reason for the additional research you call for, because the mechanism for damage would be established.
The mechanism for damage may vary between subsets of children. It is the pre disposition to vaccine damage which requires more research, and to do that much more honesty and transparency is required from all concerned.
[FONT="]http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ABELL.ZELLER073008.pdf
With regard to the proof element there is indeed such a requiremen, as is shown by the extract of the judgement from the case above;
[/FONT] "The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation. Inasmuch as the other elements of § 300aa-11 (b) and (c) have already been satisfied, the Court holds that Petitioners have met their burden on their case in chief, on the ultimate issue of entitlement to compensation.
The burden now shifts to Respondent to proffer a factor unrelated to the vaccine as either a more likely cause of the injury found by the Court, or as a superseding cause of the injury that obviated any effect of the vaccine. This Respondent has not done. The only medical explanation proffered by Respondent was the predestination of intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay based on an undetermined genetic predisposition toward neurodegeneration.
As discussed by the Court above when addressing proximate causation on Petitioner's case in chief, the Court's findings in this case are inconsistent with a ruling that Benjamin's genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of the vaccine as a superseding cause. Likewise, there is not a preponderance of evidence from within the medical records that any specific alternative diagnosis-not a single named etiology confirmed by testing-could be identified. Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization, were unconfirmed by testing in the first instance, and unsupported by the medical records in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is not a factor unrelated to overcome Petitioner's evidence on causation."
The rest of the evidence is contained within the link if you wish to read it all.0 -
Do you not think it pertinent that a specific vaccine dmage payment unit exists? is there such a unit for the medicines you cite as of equal "threat"?
No, I don't find it pertinent. Why do you think it is?
What point are you trying to make with your comparison?Have you seen the number of claims brought here and in the US? the phrase "remote possibility" does not sit well with those figures, nor the bottom line $$$ payout.
I think that given the media hype and the amount of nonsense that's available on the internet it's inevitable that there has been a large number of claims made. There are also large numbers of people who believe they've been abducted by aliens. Do you think this is an indication of something sinister too?The mechanism for damage may vary between subsets of children. It is the pre disposition to vaccine damage which requires more research, and to do that much more honesty and transparency is required from all concerned.
[FONT="]http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ABELL.ZELLER073008.pdf [/FONT]
[FONT="]With regard to the proof element there is indeed such a requiremen, as is shown by the extract of the judgement from the case above;[/FONT]
"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation. Inasmuch as the other elements of § 300aa-11 (b) and (c) have already been satisfied, the Court holds that Petitioners have met their burden on their case in chief, on the ultimate issue of entitlement to compensation.
The burden now shifts to Respondent to proffer a factor unrelated to the vaccine as either a more likely cause of the injury found by the Court, or as a superseding cause of the injury that obviated any effect of the vaccine. This Respondent has not done. The only medical explanation proffered by Respondent was the predestination of intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay based on an undetermined genetic predisposition toward neurodegeneration.
As discussed by the Court above when addressing proximate causation on Petitioner's case in chief, the Court's findings in this case are inconsistent with a ruling that Benjamin's genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of the vaccine as a superseding cause. Likewise, there is not a preponderance of evidence from within the medical records that any specific alternative diagnosis-not a single named etiology confirmed by testing-could be identified. Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization, were unconfirmed by testing in the first instance, and unsupported by the medical records in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is not a factor unrelated to overcome Petitioner's evidence on causation."
The rest of the evidence is contained within the link if you wish to read it all.
This states that the court did not accept the argument that the child's symptoms were predestined by her condition.
Can you please show where you think the court's statement supports your assertion that the finding was 'medically backed.'0 -
No, I don't find it pertinent. Why do you think it is? '
What point are you trying to make with your comparison?
I was not trying to make a point of comparison, you cited the other issues as comparable. I think it pertinent that it was necessary to set up such a dedicated service....or do you think these depts are set up on a whim and for no reason?I think that given the media hype and the amount of nonsense that's available on the internet it's inevitable that there has been a large number of claims made. There are also large numbers of people who believe they've been abducted by aliens. Do you think this is an indication of something sinister too? '
I think that is a breathtakingingly callous comment and an insult all those parents who are unfortunate enough to have to make such claims, and care for damaged children.
Have there been any payouts for alien abduction?This states that the court did not accept the argument that the child's symptoms were predestined by her condition.
Can you please show where you think the court's statement supports your assertion that the finding was 'medically backed.'
"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."
I don't think that can be any clearer. unless you don't accept that the proof would have been medical evidence? In that event I suggest you read the pdf in full.0 -
I was not trying to make a point of comparison, you cited the other issues as comparable. I think it pertinent that it was necessary to set up such a dedicated service....or do you think these depts are set up on a whim and for no reason?
Why do you think they are set up?I think that is a breathtakingingly callous comment and an insult all those parents who are unfortunate enough to have to make such claims, and care for damaged children.
Have there been any payouts for alien abduction?
It was not intended to be callous at all, but if it was so, I apologise to those concerned. There is a huge amount of nonsense written about vaccination, which is what I find callous, personally, in the same way that I find a lot of the nonsense written about cancer and new age cures for that callous too."The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."
I don't think that can be any clearer. unless you don't accept that the proof would have been medical evidence? In that event I suggest you read the pdf in full.
I have read the pdf in full. The only mention I can find of 'medically backed' evidence that the vaccination caused the child's problems was the opinion of one doctor against another, which the court chose to believe.
There was no research cited which proved that Benjamin Zeller's condition had been caused by vaccination. In fact, from reading it, it appears that this little boy had problems from birth. Perhaps it would be quicker for me to quote directly a section that I think is relevant.
The clinical and radiological observations in the medical records, the opinions of the treating doctors taken together, and the opinions of the expert witnesses heard by the Court at the evidentiary hearing, all lead the Court to believe that the MMR vaccine was related to Benjamin’s seizures which followed, and to the encephalopathy that resulted in his retrogressive neurodegeneration. Whether via measles vaccine encephalopathy as a more likely explanation, or via anoxia experienced at the time of the first seizure as one less likely, the vaccine worked to damage Benjamin’s already compromised and weakened condition. At least to some substantial extent, it is more likely than not that the seizures and the ensuing neurodegenerative injury would not have occurred as they did, but for the administration of the MMR vaccine on 17 November 2004. That is not to say that the vaccine has caused every malady which Benjamin faces. Certainly, as has been repeatedly mentioned, there were preexisting impediments which !!!!!! Benjamin’s development, most notably his static encephalopathy and microcephaly. Understood from a different perspective, it can also be said that the administration of the MMR vaccine on 17 November 2004 significantly aggravated the preexisting static encephalopathy and delayed development by causing additional damage to Benjamin’s brain through seizures and acute encephalopathy, and represented serious deterioration of his already weakened, albeit stable, condition prior to vaccination.26
This little boy had encephalopathy and microcephaly from birth. About ten days after his MMR vaccination he had a fit, and has since developed epilepsy. The court took one doctor's word against another's that the vaccination was responsible for his fit and subsequent degeneration.
If the MMR caused his problems, whether his fit was febrile or caused by the measles component of the vaccine, in a scenario where children were not required to have the MMR, he would have suffered the same fate, only probably at an earlier age. Developing real measles would have had the same effect, in fact, probably a much worse effect as the effects of real measles are much worse that those of the vaccine.
Can you please explain how further research would have helped this child?
It seems to me that he shouldn't have been vaccinated at all, as he had quite severe underlying conditions.0 -
Why do you think they are set up?
Clearly because the number of claims warranted it, and also to protect the Pharmas from direct ligitation.It was not intended to be callous at all, but if it was so, I apologise to those concerned. There is a huge amount of nonsense written about vaccination, which is what I find callous, personally, in the same way that I find a lot of the nonsense written about cancer and new age cures for that callous too.
But no one denies the incidence of cancer ( although smoking was denied as a cause for many years;)) or allies those who suffer from it to a fictional unproven event.I have read the pdf in full. The only mention I can find of 'medically backed' evidence that the vaccination caused the child's problems was the opinion of one doctor against another, which the court chose to believe.
There was no research cited which proved that Benjamin Zeller's condition had been caused by vaccination. In fact, from reading it, it appears that this little boy had problems from birth. Perhaps it would be quicker for me to quote directly a section that I think is relevant.
The clinical and radiological observations in the medical records, the opinions of the treating doctors taken together, and the opinions of the expert witnesses heard by the Court at the evidentiary hearing, all lead the Court to believe that the MMR vaccine was related to Benjamin’s seizures which followed, and to the encephalopathy that resulted in his retrogressive neurodegeneration. Whether via measles vaccine encephalopathy as a more likely explanation, or via anoxia experienced at the time of the first seizure as one less likely, the vaccine worked to damage Benjamin’s already compromised and weakened condition. At least to some substantial extent, it is more likely than not that the seizures and the ensuing neurodegenerative injury would not have occurred as they did, but for the administration of the MMR vaccine on 17 November 2004. That is not to say that the vaccine has caused every malady which Benjamin faces. Certainly, as has been repeatedly mentioned, there were preexisting impediments which !!!!!! Benjamin’s development, most notably his static encephalopathy and microcephaly. Understood from a different perspective, it can also be said that the administration of the MMR vaccine on 17 November 2004 significantly aggravated the preexisting static encephalopathy and delayed development by causing additional damage to Benjamin’s brain through seizures and acute encephalopathy, and represented serious deterioration of his already weakened, albeit stable, condition prior to vaccination.26
This little boy had encephalopathy and microcephaly from birth. About ten days after his MMR vaccination he had a fit, and has since developed epilepsy. The court took one doctor's word against another's that the vaccination was responsible for his fit and subsequent degeneration.
If the MMR caused his problems, whether his fit was febrile or caused by the measles component of the vaccine, in a scenario where children were not required to have the MMR, he would have suffered the same fate, only probably at an earlier age. Developing real measles would have had the same effect, in fact, probably a much worse effect as the effects of real measles are much worse that those of the vaccine.
Can you please explain how further research would have helped this child?
It seems to me that he shouldn't have been vaccinated at all, as he had quite severe underlying conditions.
How can you doubt that it was the MMR when that was the finding of the court? are you more medically qualified than those who adjudicated this case? indeed, are you medically qualified at all?;)
The fact remains that the case was proven as caused by vaccination, you cannnot get more definite than that wording. Furthermore, in relation to the point you make and provide a quote to "support" as above, this;
"As discussed by the Court above when addressing proximate causation on Petitioner's case in chief, the Court's findings in this case are inconsistent with a ruling that Benjamin's genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of the vaccine as a superseding cause. Likewise, there is not a preponderance of evidence from within the medical records that any specific alternative diagnosis-not a single named etiology confirmed by testing-could be identified. Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization, were unconfirmed by testing in the first instance, and unsupported by the medical records in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is not a factor unrelated to overcome Petitioner's evidence on causation."
would seem to address that comprehensively.
With regard to further research, maybe if subsets of children were tested to see if they had genetic contra indications that would have helped this child, and many more.
Maybe you are correct in assuming he was contra indicated, but one has to assume that a medical professional carried out the vaccination, so if there were such indicators and they were ignored, or missed, he was failed at the outset by the people charged to protect his health.0 -
The mechanism for damage may vary between subsets of children. It is the pre disposition to vaccine damage which requires more research, and to do that much more honesty and transparency is required from all concerned.
This is spot on! The research is needed into what the risks are for children with compromised health issues (whatever they may be) and the genetic element also needs taking into account.
Everyone is happy enough to state that herd immunity is important for immuo-compromised individuals (as it is), yet there seems less acceptance that some child are likley to be MORE AT RISK for developing vaccine related problems then others. I've never understood this?
I think there will always be people at both extremes here, i.e some who think there should be no vaccines ever and those you think all should be vaccinated at all costs, but I think most people who have concerns about mmr fall into a middle ground.
My personal experience and knowledge of these issues led me to a concious decision not to vaccinate my son with mmr, however I did have my daughter vaccinated, as she had no health issues. Most people with concerns are not in the 'agaist vaccines at all costs camp'.
I feel there is so much more research needed into this and the only time there will be enough if when it has either been proved beyond all doubt that there is no link (not just research that doesn't find evidence of a link).
Regarding the paracetamol research, I would not be surprised by this either. I think there are probably other factors that are not yet known which may provide a switch. I personally think that the childs general health is paramount. I would like to see research that investiagted the % of children with auto-immue disorders that develop autism as compared to generally healthy children. I bet it would be statistically significant.0 -
If fact as much as I have little regard to tabloid reporting, this was in the Daily Mail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html0 -
Clearly because the number of claims warranted it, and also to protect the Pharmas from direct ligitation.
The number of claims made and the number paid are a matter of public record. I'm still not clear what your point is?But no one denies the incidence of cancer ( although smoking was denied as a cause for many years;)) or allies those who suffer from it to a fictional unproven event.
Sorry, again you've lost me. My point was that there is a huge amount of nonsense about vaccination on the 'net. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?How can you doubt that it was the MMR when that was the finding of the court? are you more medically qualified than those who adjudicated this case? indeed, are you medically qualified at all?;)
The fact remains that the case was proven as caused by vaccination, you cannnot get more definite than that wording. Furthermore, in relation to the point you make and provide a quote to "support" as above, this;
"As discussed by the Court above when addressing proximate causation on Petitioner's case in chief, the Court's findings in this case are inconsistent with a ruling that Benjamin's genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of the vaccine as a superseding cause. Likewise, there is not a preponderance of evidence from within the medical records that any specific alternative diagnosis-not a single named etiology confirmed by testing-could be identified. Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization, were unconfirmed by testing in the first instance, and unsupported by the medical records in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is not a factor unrelated to overcome Petitioner's evidence on causation."
would seem to address that comprehensively.
With regard to further research, maybe if subsets of children were tested to see if they had genetic contra indications that would have helped this child, and many more.
Maybe you are correct in assuming he was contra indicated, but one has to assume that a medical professional carried out the vaccination, so if there were such indicators and they were ignored, or missed, he was failed at the outset by the people charged to protect his health.
The judgement was made on a balance of probabilities, it wasn't a factual finding. Two medical practitioners gave evidence and the court found the evidence from one of them more convincing than the other, perhaps because some of the facts cited by the losing side were unconfirmed. This doesn't mean they were incorrect.
A finding in a court of law is not the same as a scientific, factual finding. 'Proven' in a scientific sense is quite different from proven in a legal sense.
Yes, I agree that from what the judgement says, it may have been an unwise decision to vaccinate a child who already had problems with his brain. Perhaps the practitioner felt it was necessary because of the risk that real measles posed to the child?0 -
The number of claims made and the number paid are a matter of public record. I'm still not clear what your point is?
Sorry, again you've lost me. My point was that there is a huge amount of nonsense about vaccination on the 'net. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
The judgement was made on a balance of probabilities, it wasn't a factual finding. Two medical practitioners gave evidence and the court found the evidence from one of them more convincing than the other, perhaps because some of the facts cited by the losing side were unconfirmed. This doesn't mean they were incorrect.
A finding in a court of law is not the same as a scientific, factual finding. 'Proven' in a scientific sense is quite different from proven in a legal sense.
Yes, I agree that from what the judgement says, it may have been an unwise decision to vaccinate a child who already had problems with his brain. Perhaps the practitioner felt it was necessary because of the risk that real measles posed to the child?
There is very little point continuing this debate with you. I answer your questions, and you turn the questions into different ones with your responses.
You asked why a VDU was set up, I give you the possible reasons, you respond with a glib irrelevant comment. I know the numbers are a matter of public record, and they are such that the other Govt depts could not cope with the number of cases, so a new specific dept was set up.
I do agree there is a lot of nonsene of the net;) but none moreso than comparing the incidence of alien abduction with the incidence of vaccine damage, and suggesting there was as much substance in the former as the latter in an attempt to score points or minimise the horrible reality of the latter. It does you no credit.
You said it might have it might have been unwise to vaccinate. The judgement says quite clearly that there was a causal relationship between the vaccination (MMR) and the disability suffered. You really cannot get away form that no matter how hard you try.0 -
If fact as much as I have little regard to tabloid reporting, this was in the Daily Mail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html
I think think refers to a 2006 study, not an ongoing one.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards